The Separate and Combined Effects of Mother, Father, and Peer
THE SEPARATE AND COMBINED EFFECTS OF MOTHER, FATHER, AND PEER
ATTACHMENT ON YOUNG ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL, AND
EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Rebecca L. Hellenthal
June 2006 This thesis entitled
THE SEPARATE AND COMBINED EFFECTS OF MOTHER, FATHER, AND PEER
ATTACHMENT ON YOUNG ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL, AND
EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT
by
REBECCA L. HELLENTHAL
has been approved for
the Department of Psychology
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Heather K. Alvarez
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Benjamin M. Ogles
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Abstract
HELLENTHAL, REBECCA L., M.S., June 2006, Clinical Psychology
THE SEPARATE AND COMBINED EFFECTS OF MOTHER, FATHER, AND PEER
ATTACHMENT ON YOUNG ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL, BEHAVIORAL, AND
EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT (113 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Heather K. Alvarez
The present study examines the separate and combined effects of maternal,
paternal, and peer attachment relationships on social, behavioral, and emotional domains
of adjustment among a sample of young adolescents. The limitations in the existing literature are addressed by examining the unique contributions of father attachment, the individual facets of attachment in relation to multiple measures of adjustment, the mediating role of peer attachment in the relation between parental attachment and
measures of adjustment, and the way in which gender-specific attachment relationships differentially relate to adjustment. Participants are 122 fifth and sixth grade students at a public middle school in rural, Southeastern Ohio. Students completed the IPPA, ICQ,
PEQ, and RAASI. In addition, a teacher-rated social skills questionnaire was completed for each student and student disciplinary infractions were obtained. Results indicate that maternal, paternal, and peer attachment differentially relate to adolescent adjustment, the three facets of attachment (i.e., trust, communication, and alienation) uniquely relate to measures of adjustment, and gender plays a significant role in the relationship between attachment and adjustment. Clinical implications and suggestions for future research are discussed. Approved:
Heather K. Alvarez
Assistant Professor of Psychology
5
Table of Contents
Page
List of Tables ...... 8
Introduction...... 9
Foundations of Attachment Theory ...... 10
Internal Working Models...... 12
Ainsworth’s Contribution: The Strange Situation Experiment...... 13
Contemporary Attachment Literature...... 15
Attachment Has Lasting Effects ...... 15
Measuring Attachment Quality with Older Children...... 17
Attachment and Gender Differences among Adolescents ...... 21
Attachment and Adjustment ...... 22
Attachment and Social Adjustment ...... 23
Attachment and Behavioral Adjustment...... 25
Attachment and Emotional Adjustment...... 27
Attachment to Fathers...... 29
Father Attachment and Social Adjustment………………………..……………31
Father Attachment and Behavioral Adjustment……………..………………….33
Father Attachment and Emotional Adjustment…………………………………34
Attachment to Peers ...... 35
Adjustment and Gender Differences...... 38
Limitations of Previous Work...... 40 6
The Present Study ...... 43
Hypotheses...... 44
Hypothesis I ...... 44
Hypothesis II...... 45
Exploratory Analysis III ...... 45
Hypothesis IV ...... 46
Hypothesis V...... 46
Method ...... 47
Participants...... 47
Procedures...... 49
Measures ...... 51
Measure of Attachment...... 51
Measures of Social Competence...... 53
Measures of Behavioral Adjustment...... 54
Measure of Emotional Adjustment ...... 55
Results...... 55
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample ...... 55
Results for Hypothesis I...... 57
Results for Hypothesis II ...... 61
Results for Exploratory Analysis III...... 65
Results for Hypothesis IV...... 66
Results for Hypothesis V ...... 67 7
Discussion...... 71
Father Attachment...... 71
Peer Attachment...... 74
Gender Effects ...... 77
Facets of Attachment: Trust, Communication, and Alienation ...... 81
Limitations ...... 84
Future Research Suggestions ...... 86
Conclusion ...... 87
References...... 88
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………97
Appendix B ...... 103
Appendix C ...... 106
Appendix D...... 108
Appendix E ...... 110
8
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Study Measures………………………………………56
Table 2 Two-tailed Correlations between Measures of Adjustment and Attachment Figures……...………………………………………………….59
Table 3 Summary of Significant Correlations by Gender……………………………….60
Table 4 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Perceived Social Competence…………………………………………………...64
Table 5 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Antisocial Behavior……………………………………………………………...64
Table 6 Attachment Score Range for Assignment to Categorical Groups……………...……………………………………………………………68
Table 7 Percentages of Boys and Girls in the Low, Medium, and High Attachment Groups……………………………...………………………...68
Table 8 One-way Analysis of Variance Exploring Gender Effects ………………...... 69
Table 9 Mean Total Score for Bullying Others Scale among Boys and Girls within Low, Medium, and High Peer Attachment Groups……………...………70
9
Introduction
Attachment is one way to conceptualize and measure the quality of dyadic relationships. As Cotterell (1992) eloquently stated, “The distinctive feature of attachment is an affectional bond between two people that promotes a sense of psychological security.” Infant-mother attachment has been extensively researched and it is widely believed that the quality of this attachment has long term implications for children in many domains of life (e.g., Burgess, Marshall, Rubin, & Fox, 2003; Erikson,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). However, the extent to which attachment to mother, father, and close friends in late childhood and early adolescence influences adjustment has not been thoroughly researched and is less well understood
(Coleman, 2003). It is generally believed that both parental and peer attachments play key roles in the overall adjustment of adolescents. However, the specific way in which the various attachment relationships affect the different domains of adolescent adjustment remains unclear. The question remains as to what the separate and combined effects of mother, father, and peer attachment relationships are on various adjustment factors in late childhood and early adolescence. The answer to this question can help to inform prevention programs intended to enhance the adjustment of at-risk youth. More specifically, knowledge of the relative effects of attachment quality to parents and peers can be useful in clinical and educational settings as attachment relationships may be targeted to increase adjustment in various domains of functioning.
The purpose of this study is to extend the literature and inform clinical practice by
1) exploring the independent and combined contributions of perceived mother, father, 10 and peer attachments in the prediction of childhood adjustment in emotional, behavioral, and social domains, 2) highlighting gender differences in regard to the relationship between quality of attachment to mother, father, and peer and social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment, and 3) examining the way in which the three facets of attachment as measured by the IPPA (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) relate to adjustment across various domains of functioning.
The following introduction will first review the early history of attachment theory by introducing noteworthy theorists such as John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Furthermore, the major changes in attachment research over the last two decades will be highlighted. Finally, a review of previous studies examining the relationship between attachment and social, emotional, and behavioral functioning will be discussed. The introduction points to limitations in the literature and provides justification for further examination of the relation between attachment and adjustment during childhood and adolescence.
Foundations of Attachment Theory
Since its origins in 1969, there has been a trend to investigate attachment theory in the developmental field rather than the clinical field of psychology. The principal reason for this is that attachment relationships and attachment behavior have been primarily researched and observed in infants. Moreover, research on infant attachment has less relevance in clinical settings because clinically significant emotional and behavioral problems in need of intervention typically do not manifest until children develop beyond infancy. Research with older children has applied relevance in that it can 11 inform clinicians of likely co-occurring issues associated with troubled relationships and may help identify points of intervention for children, their families, and peers. One goal of the present study is to help bridge the gap between the developmental and clinical fields on the topic of attachment.
In 1969, Bowlby offered his theory on attachment and was the first to write about the importance of parent-child attachment. Bowlby claimed that attachment relationships are essential to the emotional and physical development of a child in that the attached figure provides the child with love, basic human necessities such as food, and safety from danger (Bowlby, 1969). It is hypothesized that infants are biologically disposed to form close relational attachments with their caregivers to ensure survival of the species
(Bowlby, 1969). Bowlby (1969) further identified certain infant behaviors (i.e., crying, smiling, following, clinging, sucking, and calling) that mediate attachment by increasing the likelihood that the caregiver will be responsive to the infant and remain in close physical proximity.
Before examining the present state of attachment research and its clinical implications, this paper will present information about the foundations of attachment theory. First, a distinction should be drawn between attachment behavior and attachment relationships. Attachment behavior is defined as any behavior that inevitably results in one individual achieving physical and emotional proximity with another individual
(Byng-Hall & Stevenson-Hinde, 1991). Typically, attachment behaviors have been identified among infants such as crying and smiling. The term attachment relationship refers to an emotional connection between two people that provides psychological and 12 physical security (Cotterell, 1992). Given the adolescent population being utilized in this study, attachment relationships and their correlates will be assessed as attachment behaviors among adolescents are less well defined.
Internal Working Models
Attachment theory holds that the quality of early attachment relationships lays the foundation for internal working models, or one’s expectations for interpersonal relationships more generally (Fraley, 2002). The primary relational attachment is thought to influence an individual throughout his or her life course through the presence of internal working models. As an example, if a caregiver consistently relates in a responsive and warm manner toward an infant, the infant will internalize and generalize the belief that he or she can trust others in times of need. The internalized model will be one of trust and comfort, and as a result, a secure attachment will be formed between parent and child. In converse, if a caregiver does not consistently respond to the infant’s needs or consistently responds in a negative manner, the infant’s internal working model will likely be that others cannot be counted on for support and an insecure attachment will form. Internal working models are thought to be highly influential in an individual’s life, affecting how one interacts with others, the types of responses elicited from others, and the assumptions formed about others’ intentions (Fraley, 2002; Troy & Sroufe,
1987).
Although an internal working model is theorized to continually relate to one’s interactions with others, it is not so rigid that it cannot be modified with new relational experiences (Fraley, 2002). In light of evidence that internal models are relatively fluid 13
(Fraley, 2002), more research needs to be conducted to determine how clinical work can most effectively target one’s relational issues. For instance, when children are struggling with emotional, social, or behavioral difficulties, it is helpful to know the extent to which attachment to mother, father, or a close friend can contribute to a child’s resiliency. This knowledge could aid in the identification of important points of clinical intervention. For example, if peer attachment can have a protective effect on a child with insecure parental attachments, it may be necessary to foster peer relationships to improve overall adjustment.
Ainsworth’s Contribution: The Strange Situation Experiment
Ainsworth’s contribution to attachment theory was noteworthy in that she developed the first objective measure of attachment quality and was the first to describe the three main attachment styles observed between infants and their mothers. The various styles of attachment are believed to be most readily detected when a child is actively in distress. Therefore, Ainsworth designed an observational measure to capture the nuances of attachment relationships in reaction to stressors called the Strange Situation
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) This method involves exposing the infant to a brief anxiety-producing separation from the mother and an observation of the infant’s reaction to the separation and reunion with mother. From experiments using the Strange
Situation technique, Ainsworth and her colleagues identified the following three main styles of attachment patterns: Secure, insecure/avoidant, and insecure/ambivalent forms of attachment. 14
Children with “secure” attachment styles display distress upon separation from their mother that is within normal limits and then engages in behaviors classified as
‘secure’ when their mother returns (i.e., upon arrival of the parent, these children demonstrate a desire to regain physical proximity with her, appear more calm, make eye contact with the parent, and display positive affect) (Ainsworth et al, 1978). Infants demonstrating this behavior are significantly more likely to have an attachment figure that responds in a predictably comforting way to signals of infant distress (Kozlowska &
Hanney, 2002). Consistent responses from parents ensure that children are safe and taken care of at all times. Children in a secure attachment relationship with their caregiver are described as free to express their true emotions and are met with loving support
(Kozlowska & Hanney, 2002).
Children with insecure/ambivalent attachment often demonstrate excessive crying and distress during separation from the attachment figure and an angry resistance toward this figure upon reunion (Ainsworth et al., 1978). It is thought that this type of attachment forms as a result of inconsistent parental responses to infant distress that oscillate between warmth or caring and unresponsiveness (Kozlowska & Hanney, 2002). The instability of this parental response is confusing for children, and often leads to the display of extreme levels of affect (both happiness and sadness) on the child’s part to gain the attention of the parent and to attempt to increase consistency with an inconsistent parent. Children with this form of insecure attachment also tend to be highly cognizant of their parent’s whereabouts and cling to the parent to avoid separation (Byng-Hall, 2002). 15
Children described by insecure/avoidant attachment demonstrate minimal crying during separation from mother and avoidance of the attachment figure upon reunion that is characterized by attempting to keep emotional and physical distance from the parent while responding appropriately to questions (Ainsworth et al., 1978). This form of attachment is associated with caregivers that respond to infant distress in a consistently negative manner (e.g., rejection or nonresponse), which increases the infant’s level of distress (Kozlowska & Hanney, 2002). Eventually, these children learn to inhibit their display of emotion when distressed and to ignore or avoid the parent. Avoidant attachment can be observed in toddlers that avoid making eye contact with the attached figure, which often leads to a negative response from the parent as they may become offended by this slight. By the time children reach preschool age, many have learned to display excessive positive affect to appease the attached figure and to hide their negative affect.
In summary, attachment research has its underpinnings in the observation of mother-infant relationships. Since Bowlby and Ainsworth’s groundbreaking work, attachment theory has been applied to other relationship dyads and to people of all ages.
The extensive research that demonstrates the validity of studying attachment outside of the mother-infant dyad is summarized below.
Contemporary Attachment Literature
Attachment Has Lasting Effects
Bowlby (1969) recognized that attachment continues to play a major role in behavior throughout childhood and even into adulthood. A wide array of empirical work 16 since the inception of this theory has shown considerable support for Bowlby’s early notions. Since the work of Bowlby, there has been mounting evidence that the effects of attachment do not end in early childhood.
A number of longitudinal studies have consistently demonstrated that infant attachment has lasting effects by examining mother-child attachment style in infancy using the Strange Situation procedure and then collecting information about participant factors in early childhood (Burgess et al., 2003; Erikson, et al., 1985; Renken, Egeland,
Marvinney, Mandelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989). For instance, Burgess et al. (2003) reported that observer rated mother-infant attachment style at 14 months of age predicts children’s level of expressed aggression at four years of age. Renken et al. (1989) also found that attachment to mother classified during infancy (between 12 and 18 months) was predictive of aggression in elementary school (first, second, and third grades), with insecure attachment predicting high levels of aggression. In a sample of low SES children, Erikson and colleagues (1985) found mother-infant insecure attachment to be positively associated with lower confidence, poorer social skills, more dependency on teachers, and less compliance with teachers’ instructions and rules compared to securely attached children at 4 ½ to 5 years of age.
Few studies have examined the longitudinal relationship between infant attachment and adolescent adjustment (Aviezer, Sagi, Resnick, & Gini, 2002). However, there appears to be some evidence demonstrating the long term effects of mother-infant attachment on adolescent outcomes. For instance, Aviezer et al. (2002) investigated the long term implications of mother-infant attachment (classified by the Strange Situation 17 procedure at 13-15 months of age) among a sample of Israeli boys and girls (N=66). The participants were reevaluated at age 11 or 12 years to assess for variables such as separation anxiety, grade point average, social competence, behavioral difficulty, and emotional maturity. Results indicated that mother-infant attachment predicted young adolescents’ teacher-rated scholastic skill (Beta = 0.28, p<0.01) and emotional maturity
(Beta = 0.26, p<0.01) 10 to 11 years later.
Given the extensive research indicating that attachments formed during infancy have relationships with measures of adjustment beyond infancy, in the last two decades there has been a move to examine attachment relationships and their correlates among older children, adolescents, and even adults (Wilkinson, 2004). It is important to note that measuring attachment later in life is different from assessing attachment among infants.
These differences will be further explored in the following section.
Measuring Attachment Quality with Older Children
Developing a reliable and valid means of measuring attachment in children and adolescents has posed a challenge to clinical and developmental researchers, largely due to necessary changes in the way attachment is conceptualized and measured in older individuals as compared to that of infants. Applying attachment theory to adolescents requires an understanding that attachment bonds are qualitatively different in adolescence in that adolescents rely less on their parents for physical support and are increasingly looking to other individuals with whom to form attachments (Armsden & Greenberg,
1987). Research has demonstrated that attachment styles (e.g., secure versus insecure) are moderately stable (ρ=0.39) from childhood to adolescence (Fraley, 2002) even though the 18 expression of parent-child attachment changes as the teen increases in age (i.e., teens are not as reliant upon their parents for emotional and physical support compared to younger children) (Wartner, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombik, & Suess, 1994). Gullone and
Robinson’s (2005) work supports this assertion. Their examination of differences between a group of children aged between 9 and 11 years and a group of adolescents aged between 14 and 15 years revealed that the child group had significantly higher overall attachment scores compared to the adolescents. Moreover, Laible, Carlo, and
Raffaelli (2000) found significant age effects among a sample of middle and high school adolescents in that younger adolescents reported higher levels of attachment than older adolescents.
Despite the stability of attachment styles from infancy to adolescence, infant and adolescent attachment behaviors differ (Bowlby, 1982). It is hypothesized that parents serve as a secure base for their children, at any age, to return to in times of distress
(Bowlby, 1988). During infancy, the secure base provides support for the child as they are gaining physical independence from the parent, whereas the secure base provides support for adolescents in relation to their development of cognitive and emotional independence (Allen et al., 2003).
Because the conceptualization of parent-child attachment relationships with adolescents is quite different from that of infants, measuring attachment among older children and adolescents has also required significant changes. As attachment theorists have moved toward examining attachment among older children and adolescents, the literature has become less specific. In other words, most measures of adolescent 19 attachment focus primarily on the strength of attachment relationships on a continuum rather than discriminating the children by Ainsworth et al.’s (1978) three categories
(secure, insecure/ambivalent, insecure/avoidant) as is typically done with infants. This disparity is most likely the result of differing attachment behaviors between infants and older children (e.g., as development progresses it is less normative for children to react overtly negatively to temporary parent-child separation). It may be that additional observational research with parents and older children over the course of time or in more naturalistic settings would reveal clearly identifiable behaviors exhibited by parent- adolescent dyads as indicative of secure or insecure attachment. Allen et al. (2003) has made progress toward this goal by assessing for attachment quality among mother- adolescent dyads with the Adult Attachment Interview and then observing the pair discuss a family issue on which they disagreed to reveal trends in interaction styles.
Additional research is needed to develop a psychometrically sound and feasible observational measure of parent-adolescent attachment.
Attachment styles among older children are generally assessed by self-report questionnaire as opposed to observation or parent-report measures. Although some researchers believe one cannot tap attachment relationships without the use of observation, Armsden and Greenberg (1987) argue for the utility of self-report measures for assessment of attachment among older children and adolescents. They purport that self-report measures tap relational expectations that are a part of the adolescent’s internal working model, in addition to aspects of the adolescent’s behavior in regards to seeking emotional and physical support. 20
There are a number of reasons why observational methods are rarely used to measure attachment in older children and adults. First, observational methods of assessment, such as the Strange Situation, rely on children being in distress when separated from their primary caregiver. However, with development, separation anxiety becomes less developmentally appropriate and children generally become able to respond appropriately to increased parental separation (Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz, 2003).
In addition, the Strange Situation method is quite time consuming. Because of the aforementioned obstacles, a number of paper and pencil questionnaires, both self and parent-report, have been developed for a time efficient, more feasible, assessment of attachment styles for children of all ages and even adults.
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg,
1987) is one example of a frequently used self-report questionnaire that measures the quality of attachment relationships. Given that attachment is theorized as a multidimensional construct having behavioral, affective, and cognitive aspects, the IPPA is a multifactorial measure of attachment measuring feelings of trust (i.e., understanding, respect, and mutual trust), communication (i.e., the extent and quality of verbal communication with attachment figure), and alienation (i.e., emotional detachment or isolation from attachment figure). Unfortunately, just one known study has examined the relationship between each facet of attachment and measures of adjustment and these authors examined only the emotional domain of adjustment (Gullone & Robinson, 2005).
Additional research is warranted to determine if specific domains of attachment may be more closely related to adjustment in particular areas. 21
Attachment and Gender Differences among Adolescents
With the progression in the literature to examine attachment among adolescent samples, researchers began exploring peer attachment relationships given the increasing importance of peers during adolescence (Furman and Buhrmester, 1992). The attachment literature has consistently highlighted the importance of gender in considering adolescents’ perceived attachment to both parents and peers. Numerous studies have found gender to be a significant factor in relation to peer attachment (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987; Coleman, 2003; Gullone & Robinson, 2005; Laible et al., 2000; Nada
Raja, McGee, & Stanton, 1992; Rubin, Dwyer, Booth-LaForce, Kim, Burgess, & Rose-
Krasnor, 2004; Wilkinson, 2004). Among the studies reporting specific gender discrepancies, girls’ ratings of peer attachment were found to be significantly higher compared to boys’ ratings of peer attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Gullone &
Robinson, 2005; Rubin et al., 2004; Wilkinson, 2004). Alternatively, with one exception, no significant gender effects were found among those studies that reported on parental attachment and gender differences (Allen, McElhaney, Kuperminc, & Jodl, 2004;
Coleman, 2003; Laible et al., 2000). Alternatively, Rubin et al. (2004) revealed that adolescent boys rated attachment to father significantly higher than did girls. This discrepancy in the literature suggests the need to further clarify the role of gender in attachment relationships. Moreover, gender differences have been reported in the way in which attachment relates to adjustment among adolescents. This literature will be reviewed in the following section. 22
Attachment and Adjustment
Research has consistently demonstrated that mother-child attachment relationships influence childhood adjustment across various domains of functioning
(Nada Raja et al., 1992; Rubin et al., 2004). However, most studies examining the associations between attachment and adolescent adjustment use concurrent data resulting in the inability to draw conclusions about direction of causality (Doyle & Markiewicz,
2005). In response, Doyle and Markiewicz (2005) conducted a longitudinal investigation of parental attachment and its effects on adjustment. They measured perceived parental attachment among adolescents at 13 years of age and various domains of adjustment at 15 years of age (e.g., depressive symptoms, self-esteem, and school grades). Analyses revealed that attachment security was indeed related to adjustment in regard to levels of internalizing problems, self-esteem, and self-reported school achievement two years later.
Therefore, it was concluded that parental attachment influences adolescent adjustment.
Overall, it is clear that adjustment can be defined in numerous ways, and, likewise, a variety of methods are used in its measurement. As such, the present study will examine multiple facets of adjustment (i.e., emotional, behavioral, and social domains), with a specific focus on emotional distress and positive sense of self, aggressive or antisocial behaviors, and social competence. A review of the literature involving attachment to mother (or parents in general) and the aforementioned domains of adjustment will be discussed. This will be followed by the presentation of the few studies to date that have explored child and adolescent attachments specific to fathers and peers. 23
Attachment and Social Adjustment
Social competence can be defined in many ways and there are numerous factors that comprise this broad construct (e.g., problem solving, conflict resolution, assertiveness). For instance, Rubin and Rose-Krasnor (1992) defined social competence as “the ability to achieve personal goals in social interaction while maintaining positive relationships with others, over time and across situations” (p.285). To measure social competence, Rose-Krasnor, Rubin, Booth, and Coplan (1996) observed four-year-old children and rated their social problem-solving skills and quality of social engagement.
They found observer-rated maternal attachment security to be positively associated only with the social engagement dimension of competence. They conclude that their findings provide support for the belief that secure attachment relationships assist children in the development of the confidence needed to explore unfamiliar social situations (Rose-
Kasnor et al., 1996).
Other studies have examined additional domains of social competence and have come to similar conclusions, namely, that there is a positive relationship between mother- child attachment and social competence in children (Coleman, 2003; Lieberman, Doyle,
Markiewicz, 1999; Wartner et al., 1994). Cohn (1990) found support for the hypothesis that quality of observer-rated maternal attachment is associated with social competence
(peer sociability and adaptive assertiveness). He examined 1st grade students’ social
competence as reported by their classroom teachers and found that insecurely attached
boys were rated as less competent (F(1,32)=5.58, p<0.05) and were also less well liked
by both peers (F(1,31)=4.21, p<0.05) and teachers (F(1,31)=4.46, p<0.05). These 24 findings still held true after accounting for variance of other characteristics purported to relate to social competence (e.g., child’s intelligence, temperament, physical attractiveness, and previous peer experience). Overall, Cohn (1990) concluded that observer-rated mother-child attachment quality at six years of age was positively associated with social competence in the school setting.
A number of studies have found significant positive correlations between mother or parent attachment relationships and friendship quality as a measure of social competence (Rubin et al., 2004). As an example, Lieberman et al. (1999) found that positive friendship qualities (e.g., helpfulness, feelings of closeness to a friend, and feelings of security in a relationship) were significantly related to security of self-reported parent-child attachment as assessed by Kerns Security Scale in a large sample of children aged 9 to 14 years. In addition, they reported that secure attachment was related to lower levels of conflict in friendships. Similarly, Kerns, Klepac, and Cole (1996) found a positive association between secure mother-child attachment with peer likeability and reciprocated friendships, and a negative association between maternal attachment with reports of loneliness among 5th grade students. Given the long-term implications for these
social factors (Parker & Asher, 1987), further understanding of important predictive
variables such as attachment seems warranted.
A recent meta-analysis has concurred that there is indeed a relationship between
parent-child attachment quality and social adjustment (Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardiff,
2001). This meta-analysis included 63 studies that examined the relationship between
observer-rated parent-child attachment and peer relations. Schneider et al. (2001) 25 reported a significant relationship between secure attachment and positive peer relationships (ES=.20). Interestingly, studies that examined close friendships found stronger correlations between peer relations and parent-child attachment (ES = .24) compared to those examining the relationship between attachment and peer relationships in general (ES = .14). This finding suggests that measures specifying the use of the participant’s closest friend, rather than peers in general, are the most sensitive to the effects of parental attachment relationships. Moreover, the specification of the child’s closest friend is also more closely aligned with attachment theory in that attachment relationships are formed by dyadic pairs.
Attachment and Behavioral Adjustment
For the purpose of the present study, level of aggression and antisocial behavior will be used to determine behavioral adjustment. Aggression and antisocial behavior are good measures of behavioral adjustment as research has shown levels of aggression to be stable across various stages of childhood among normative populations (Renken et al.,
1989) and antisocial behavior to be a strong predictor of maladjustment in adulthood
(Kokko & Pulkkinen, 2000). Existing research indicates that aggressive behavior is associated with observer-rated and parent-rated insecure mother-child attachments in childhood and adolescence (Cohn, 1990; Marcus & Kramer, 2001; Rubin et al., 2004).
For instance, Troy and Sroufe (1987) conducted a unique study in which four- and five- year-old children were categorized by attachment style based on observer ratings and then assigned to a partner to create pairs of children with all possible combinations of attachment styles (e.g., secure-avoidant, secure-secure, etc.). The dyads were then 26 observed in seven unstructured play sessions during which they were instructed to play with the toys in a playroom. An adult aide was present and was instructed to only intervene in the play to stop potentially dangerous behavior. The results indicated that if at least one child in the dyad was securely attached to a parent, victimization did not take place. Moreover, all of the children that acted as ‘victimizer’ had an avoidant attachment relationship with their mother. Most notably, all of the relationships with an avoidant child paired with another insecurely attached child, resulted in victimization. This study provides an early account of directionality in the relationship between attachment and adjustment in social settings as it suggests an element of causality.
Teacher-rated, self-reported, and peer-nominated aggressive behavior among students has also given support for the contention that aggressive behavior is associated with mother-child insecure attachment among children and adolescents. For example,
Cohn (1990) found that 1st grade boys identified by observer ratings as having an insecure attachment with their mothers were described by their peers as starting more fights than securely attached boys (F(1,32)=4.25, p<0.05). Specifically, those boys specified as having an insecure-ambivalent relationship with their mothers were rated as significantly more aggressive overall. Teacher ratings also revealed that insecurely attached boys were perceived as having more behavior problems in the school setting.
The relationship between attachment and aggression remained unchanged after the effects
of other factors such as intelligence, temperament, physical attractiveness, and previous
peer experience were accounted for. Similarly, Laible et al. (2000) examined attachment
and level of self-reported aggression among high school students. They found higher 27 levels of reported parental attachment to be associated with lower levels of aggression. In addition, Noom, Dekovic, & Meeus (1999) examined attachment and antisocial behavior in a sample of 400 Dutch adolescents (ages 12-18) and found mother attachment to be significantly negatively correlated with self-reported antisocial behavior.
Alternatively, Rose-Krasnor et al.’s (1996) research does not lend support for the hypothesis that attachment style is related to aggression as they found no significant relationship between observational ratings of attachment and observed child aggression.
These null findings may best be explained by differences in methodology. Rose-Krasnor et al. (1996) conducted an observational measure of aggression, and unlike Troy and
Sroufe (1987) in which the observation occurred in the child’s familiar preschool setting and without the presence of the mother, this study conducted an observation of the child in an unnatural laboratory play room with both child and mother present. Rose-Kasnor et al.’s (1996) study also included structured play time. It is likely that children may be less likely to demonstrate aggression when in the presence of their parent and in a structured and novel situation. In general, research conducted in more naturalistic settings yield results less attributable to social desirability.
Attachment and Emotional Adjustment
Research supports the notion that parent-child attachment relationships (not specific to mother or father) are related to emotional adjustment among children and adolescents (Cotterell, 1992; Nada Raja et al., 1992; Wilkinson, 2004; Wilkinson &
Walford, 2001). Specifically, Armsden and Greenberg (1987) found self-reported parent attachment to significantly negatively relate to depression/anxiety and 28 resentment/alienation scores in a sample of older adolescents and young adults completing the Affective Status Index (Bachman, 1970). Likewise, recent research (Allen et al., 2004; Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004) found that secure parental attachments were associated with fewer internalizing problems among adolescents.
Additionally, Nada Raja et al. (1992) and Wilkinson and Walford (2001) examined adolescent-reported attachment quality and level of emotional distress. Nada
Raja et al. (1992) found that adolescents labeled as having low parent attachment reported more distress compared to those in the high parent attachment group among a large sample (n=935) of 15-year-olds. Similarly, Wilkinson and Walford (2001) examined a sample of 16- to 18-year-old adolescents and found that their self-reported levels of parent attachment were significantly negatively correlated with measures of psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and negative affect).
Similarly, a number of recent studies have examined the role of self-esteem in the relationship between attachment style and adjustment or mental health more generally
(e.g., Noom et al., 1999; Wilkinson, 2004). As an example, Wilkinson (2004) collected data on self-esteem, parent attachment, and depression in a large group of Norwegian students (n=2006) ages 11 to 19 years. Partial correlation analyses were conducted and
Wilkinson reported that self-esteem served as a mediator in the relationship between parent-adolescent attachment and psychological health (as measured by depression).
Thus, he concluded that the attachment relationship helps to foster self-esteem rather than to affect psychological health directly. Although these results are intriguing, the findings have not yet been replicated. Moreover, there are more sophisticated analyses to use (i.e., 29 hierarchical regression and Sobel test) when exploring Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for testing mediated effects (Holmbeck, 1997).
It is important to note that many investigations of emotional adjustment utilize clinical measures of depression and anxiety. Although depression and anxiety are better indicators of clinically significant emotional problems, attachment relationships may also relate to sub-syndromal forms of emotional distress and dysfunction. As such, in an effort to identify at-risk youth in a normative setting, the present study will utilize measures more appropriate for use with the general, non-clinical population to assess for emotional distress and positive self-image. Moreover, measuring attachment non-specific to either mother or father (i.e., utilizing a measure of “parental” attachment) goes against the dyadic nature of attachment relationships as defined by Bowlby (1969) and ignores the unique qualities of mother-child and father-child relationships.
Attachment to Fathers
A small subset of researchers are now branching out from evaluating mother-child attachment relationships to include measures of father-child attachment in their investigations (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Coleman, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1999;
Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004; Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001; Verschueren &
Marcoen, 2002; Wilkinson, 2004). There is mounting evidence that fathers are unique related to measures of adolescent adjustment specifically. However, the literature on the specific relationships between father attachments and adolescent adjustment is still limited as few researchers have examined this question with an adolescent population 30
(e.g., Coleman, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1999; Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004;
Simons et al., 2001). Moreover, the various studies provide conflicting results.
Schneider et al.’s (2001) review of the literature revealed that at the time only five studies had included father-child attachment separate from mother-child attachment as an influence on social relations, compared to at least 60 studies that had researched mother- child attachment. They also reported that the average effect size for the studies examining father-child attachment and peer relations was higher than that found for the relationship between mother-child attachment and peer relations. However, because these studies all used observational methods of assessing attachment quality, it is likely they were conducting research with younger children or infants. Therefore, it is unclear whether these findings will hold true with an older group of children or adolescents. Although the findings at first seem counterintuitive given the importance of mother-child relationships, the strength of the association between father attachment and peer relations as compared to maternal attachment may be attributable to disparate parenting styles in which fathers tend to interact with their children in a playful, possibly even friend-like, manner (Lamb,
2004). Schneider et al. (2001) noted that there may be some gender differences between father-son and father-daughter attachment in the social domain of adjustment, however, additional research is needed to determine how the quality of father attachment influences male and female children differently and if the effects change throughout development. A review of the attachment literature highlighting the unique contribution of father-specific relationships on childhood and adolescent adjustment follows. Note that although the majority of the evidence points to a significant association between father attachment and 31 the social, behavioral, and emotional domains of adolescent adjustment, the results are inconclusive (Noom et al., 1999; Simons et al., 2001).
Father Attachment and Social Adjustment. Although a few studies have found support for the contention that father-child attachment is related to social functioning during adolescence (Coleman, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004;
Verschueren & Marcoen, 2002), other research would refute this (Noom et al., 1999;
Simons et al., 2001). In a study using the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) to measure child-reported mother, father, and peer attachment, Coleman (2003) found that ratings of attachment to mother were related differently than father attachment to child adjustment in 5th and 6th grade students. More
specifically, maternal attachment was significantly positively related to peer attachment.
However, the relationship between paternal attachment and peer attachment was not
significant. Alternatively, paternal attachment was significantly positively related to perceived social self-efficacy, whereas the relationship between maternal attachment and social self-efficacy was not significant. Because of this finding, he hypothesized that father-child secure attachments result in children’s perceived feelings of social competence rather than an actual acquiring of social skills or close social relationships.
Further, in accordance with findings in the maternal attachment literature, Coleman
(2003) reported that father-child attachment has less influence on girls’ social functioning as compared to boys, which suggests there may be significant gender differences related to the above findings. 32
Two additional studies have also highlighted the unique contributions of father- specific attachment on social functioning among adolescents. Specifically, Rubin et al.
(2004) reported significant associations between perceived social competence and ratings of paternal attachment among young adolescents (r=.32, p<0.01), whereas this relationship was not as strong for mother attachment (r=.23, p<0.01). Similarly,
Lieberman et al. (1999) reported that positive paternal attachments were related to less perceived conflict in adolescent friendships (β=-.22, p<0.001), whereas this relationship was not significant for maternal attachment. Additional research examining the unique contributions of mother and father attachment to adolescent social functioning is warranted.
Utilizing a younger population, Verschueren and Marcoen (2002) assessed both self-reported attachment to mother and father separately in a 3rd and 4th grade sample.
They utilized peer-nomination to identify children as rejected/aggressive,
rejected/nonaggressive, popular, or average and compared the groups on a number of
variables, including parent attachment, self-worth, social acceptance, physical
appearance, and behavioral conduct. The results revealed that the rejected/nonaggressive
children rated their relationship with their fathers as significantly less secure than the
popular children. Moreover, feelings of self-worth served as a mediator of the
relationship between peer rejection and father attachment. No such differences were
revealed for mother attachment. The authors conclude that these data provide support for the relative importance of father-child attachments on childhood adjustment given that
this same relationship was not found with the mother-child data. This study highlights the 33 need for additional research examining the mediational mechanisms by which attachment and adjustment are related.
Father Attachment and Behavioral Adjustment. A limited number of studies have examined the unique contribution of father-child attachment on aggressive behaviors.
The research conducted in this area has revealed that paternal attachment is associated with fewer externalizing behavioral problems (Lieberman et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004;
Simon et al., 2001), although two additional studies did not find support for this (Noom et al., 1999; Simons et al., 2001). As mentioned previously, Lieberman et al. (1999) highlights the unique contribution of child-reported father availability (one of the two domains of attachment measured in this study) in a sample of 9- to 14-year-olds.
Specifically, they found father availability, but not mother availability, to be predictive of less perceived conflict in child friendships (β=-.22, p<.001). Similarly, both perceived secure paternal attachment and maternal attachment have been shown to be negatively related to externalizing behaviors (r=-.33, p<0.01; r=-.22, p<0.01, respectively), including aggression and other behaviors that may contribute to conflict in friendships (Rubin et al.,
2004). These studies suggest that secure father attachment may serve as a protective factor against externalizing difficulties. In other words, secure father attachments may facilitate the acquisition of behavior control among adolescents.
Interestingly, the relationship between paternal attachment and behavioral adjustment has not been consistently supported. Specifically, Noom et al. (1999) reported no significant findings for the association between father attachment and a measure of self-reported antisocial behavior. Moreover, Simons et al. (2001) actually found a 34 significant positive association between a teacher-report measure of aggression and father attachment (r=.29, p<.05). This data would suggest that aggression was more prevalent among the students with more secure paternal attachments.
Father Attachment and Emotional Adjustment. In line with the social and behavioral domains, the research exploring the relationship between father attachment and emotional adjustment yields conflicting results. The work of Noom et al. (1999),
Rubin et al. (2004), Verschueren & Marcoen (2002) would support the notion that father attachment is related to adolescent emotional functioning. However, Simons et al. (2001) would not support this finding. Noom et al. (1999) explored the relationship between paternal attachment and self-esteem and depressive mood in a sample of Dutch adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. The results revealed a significant relationship between both self-reported attachment to fathers and mothers and self-reported measures of emotional adjustment among adolescents. More specifically, both attachment to father and mother were positively correlated with a measure of self-esteem (r=.36, p<0.01; r=.31, p<0.01, respectively) and negatively correlated with depressive symptomatology
(r=-.32, p<0.01; r=-.22, p<0.01, respectively). Similarly, Rubin et al. (2004) found both perceived paternal and maternal attachment to be significantly correlated with self-worth
(r=.33, p<0.01; r=.35, p<0.01, respectively) and fewer internalizing problems (r=-.20, p<0.05; r=-.24, p<0.01, respectively). As mentioned previously, Verschueren & Marcoen
(2002) reported that self-worth served as a mediator of the relationship between father attachment and rejection from peers. Alternatively, Simons et al. (2002) only found a 35 significant association between attachment and self-esteem for the maternal attachment relationship (r=.39, p<0.01) and not the paternal relationship (r=.10).
Attachment to Peers
A number of researchers have examined the differential effects of parent and peer attachments on various domains of functioning among adolescents (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987; Coleman, 2003; Cotterell, 1992; Laible et al., 2000; Noom et al., 1999;
Rubin et al., 2004; Wilkinson, 2004). Multiple studies have asserted that attachment to parents is more closely related to overall adolescent adjustment as compared to attachment to peers (Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983; Gullone & Robinson, 2005;
Nada Raja et al., 1992; Noom et al., 1999; Wilkinson & Walford, 2001). However, many of these studies try to use just one mode of adjustment to support their assertion.
Additionally, most of these studies use only self-reported measures of adjustment, which may not sufficiently capture the many domains of adjustment, as research has indicated the importance of multimodal assessments (Rubin et al., 2004). Given the findings in the literature with regard to the importance of peer attachment, it is likely that peer attachment relationships uniquely relate to adolescent adjustment.
Most of the research examining peer attachment and its correlates focuses on the emotional domain of adjustment. This research has consistently demonstrated that peer attachment is positively associated with emotional adjustment in particular. However, it is less clear how peer attachment compares relative to attachment relationships with parents. Gullone and Robinson (2005) found that attachment figures and developmental stage significantly contribute to adjustment outcome. They examined parent (no 36 specification of mother or father) and peer attachment in children aged 9 to 11 years and adolescents aged 14 and 15 years. Their results indicated no significant differences between the ratings of parent and peer attachment relationships among the child group
(ages 9 to 11), however, the responses from the adolescent group (ages 14 and 15) suggest that parent attachment (r = .65, p < .001) is more closely related to high self- esteem compared to peer attachment (r = .33, p < .001). Of note, the adolescent sample was overrepresented by girls (80%) which may have skewed the results. Additionally,
Armsden and Greenberg’s (1987) research demonstrated the unique contribution of peer attachment on adjustment among older adolescents and young adults (ages 17 to 20 years). They found self-reported peer attachment to be significantly and positively related to social self-concept, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Despite these significant findings, analyses indicated that parent attachment was still more closely related to self-esteem and life satisfaction compared to peer attachment.
Although a number of studies have compared the contributions of parent and peer attachments on adolescent psychological or emotional adjustment, only two known studies have examined how mother, father, and peer attachments relate to social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment concurrently (e.g., Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al.,
2004). In this, Noom et al. (1999) reported that parental attachment is more influential overall than peer attachment to adjustment among adolescents (ages 12-18). Consistent with previous findings, they reported that both parent and peer attachment relationships were associated with self-reported measures of self-esteem among adolescents. However, the correlation was stronger for mother (r=.31) and father (r=.36) relationships than it was 37 for relationships with peers (r=.16). Conversely, in the social domain, these authors found the correlation between self-reported attachment to peers and measures of self-reported social competence to be significantly positive, although the relationship was not significant between parent attachment and social competence. They note, however, that these results do not necessarily represent an actual increase in social competence among those with more positive attachments to peers because the social competence was self- reported by the participants. Alternatively, they did not find a significant association between self-reported antisocial behavior and peer attachment. These results emphasize the importance of acknowledging the different attachment figure’s influence on multiple domains of adjustment, because the various attachment figures may affect adjustment in unique ways.
Similarly, Rubin et al.’s (2004) key study explored the effects of mother and father attachment security and friendship quality on emotional, social, and behavioral adjustment among 5th grade students. They found peer relationships to be significantly
positively associated with higher self-esteem, feelings of social competence, and fewer
internalizing and externalizing problems (Rubin et al., 2004). They also reported that
high friendship quality served as a moderator of the relationship between maternal
support and internalizing difficulties. Although this further points to the importance of
considering peer relationships among adolescents, additional work is needed to explore
peer attachments as a specific form of such relationships.
Laible et al. (2000) also examined the correlates of peer attachment. In opposition
to Noom et al. (1999), they claimed that peer attachment relationships are more closely 38 related to adolescent adjustment than are parent attachment relationships. These authors examined levels of self-reported depression, sympathy, anxiety, aggression, and Math and English efficacy in 89 middle and high school students in a diverse population (38% were Latino, 9% other ethnic origins, and 53% Caucasian). The results indicated that for this group of children, adolescents with secure peer attachments and insecure parent attachments fared better in terms of depression, aggression, and sympathy measures compared to the adolescents with secure parent attachments and insecure peer attachments. This important study also highlights the need to further replicate and extend these findings to other samples (e.g., rural, primarily Caucasian) to better understand the role of peer attachment relationships in various cultures and settings.
Adjustment and Gender Differences
Research indicates that there are noteworthy gender differences associated with the effects of parent and peer attachment on adjustment. Specifically, there appear to be significant gender differences in the emotional domain of functioning. For instance, it has been consistently found that girls’ ratings of parental attachment are more closely related to positive self-esteem as compared to the relationship between boys’ ratings of parental attachment and measures of self-esteem (Cotterell, 1992; Gullone & Robinson, 2005).
Cotterell’s (1992) study highlighted the marked gender differences in the extent to which parent and peer attachments have an effect on self-esteem among adolescents aged 14 to
17 years. Specifically, for girls, parent attachment had a stronger correlation with self- esteem (r=.59) than did peer attachment (r=.16). Conversely, boys responses indicated that peer attachment had a stronger correlation with self-esteem (r=.54) than did parent 39 attachment (r=.38). Overall, girls’ adjustment, as measured by self-esteem, depression, and social relationships was more closely associated with parent attachment than with peer attachment. However, boys’ adjustment was associated more with peer attachment than with parent attachment. Although Gullone and Robinson’s (2005) findings did not reach significance, when examining the association between self-esteem and parent and peer attachment, there was a trend for the female-rated parent attachment (r=.62) to be more highly correlated with self-esteem as compared to the correlation between female- rated peer attachment and self-esteem (r=.45). This was not the case, however, among the boys participating in the study. Additionally, Rubin et al. (2004) found that girls’ ratings of maternal attachment, but not boys’, were significantly negatively related to internalizing symptoms. Overall, girls’ emotional adjustment is more closely linked to parental attachment, whereas boys’ emotional adjustment may be more related to peer attachment.
There is also evidence for significant gender differences in the way in which attachment relates to adjustment in the social domain of functioning (Cohn, 1990;
Coleman, 2003; Rubin et al., 2004). Coleman (2003) found a stronger correlation between boys’ ratings of attachment (as compared to the girls) to mother, father, and peer with a self-reported measure of social self-efficacy among a young adolescent sample.
Similarly, Rubin et al. (2004) found that maternal attachment was significantly positively related to perceived social competence for boys, but not girls. In Cohn’s (1990) study, 6- year-old boys, but not girls, identified by observer ratings as having insecure maternal attachments were rated by their teachers as having less social competence compared to 40 secure boys. Overall, it appears that boys’ attachment relationships are more closely related to social adjustment than are girls’ attachment relationships.
Research has also indicated a significant relationship between attachment and adjustment in the behavioral domain. For instance, 6-year-old boys, but not girls, who were identified as having insecure attachments with their mothers were rated by their teachers as starting more fights and as having more overall behavior problems compared to the securely attached boys (Cohn, 1990). Alternatively, Rubin et al. (2004) reported that the relationship between maternal attachment and aggressive or externalizing symptoms were significantly negatively associated for young adolescent girls, but not boys. These findings warrant further investigation of the effects of gender in relation to attachment and adjustment, especially in the behavioral domain of adjustment where findings have been limited in number and inconsistent.
Limitations of Previous Work
Over time, the attachment literature has evolved from its initial efforts to identify and define the various attachment relationships that infants can form with their primary caregiver, to attempting to discover correlates and consequences of attachment quality among children and adolescents. There are a number of limitations to how attachment research has traditionally been conducted and, also, to more recent methodologies. First, the continued use of certain populations (low-risk and infant populations) has restricted the knowledge of adolescent and high-risk populations. Second, the bias toward examining mother instead of father-specific attachment relationships has minimized the importance of the father during child development. Third, peer relationships have been 41 measured by various constructs such as friendship quality, which makes it difficult to compare the peer data to the parent attachment data. Finally, the lack of focus on peer contribution to adjustment disregards the fact that children gradually turn towards their friends more frequently than toward their parents for emotional support as development progresses (Leaper, 2002).
In addition, the way in which the literature has conceptualized and operationalized adjustment among adolescents has been inconsistent, rendering the comparison of studies and relevant theoretical models more challenging. Moreover, many studies utilize only self-report measures in the assessment of social competence and behavioral functioning.
This is problematic because certain groups of children often demonstrate elevated self- perceptions (e.g., children who have been labeled as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder often demonstrate a “positive illusory bias”; Hoza, Pelham, Milich, Pillow, &
McBride, 1993).
Previous work has established the importance of examining mother, father, and peer relationships separately and combined in predicting childhood adjustment (Laible et al., 2000; Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004). Of the existing research, however, there are a number of limitations that warrant further investigation of these factors. For example, Rubin et al. (2004) found that mother and father attachments and friendship quality, together and separately, were significantly associated with social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment in children. Although their results are interesting, Rubin et al.
(2004) used a very specific sample of participants (i.e., 40% of the participants were of minority race, a majority were children of urban professionals, and 72% of the children 42 lived in two parent homes) and it is unclear whether the results of such attachment studies may be generalized to other populations (i.e., it is unclear how attachment and its correlates differ by population).
Even though the literature is moving toward examining the effects of attachment relationships with older children and adolescents, much of the existing work only evaluates the effects of parental attachment (non-specific to either parent) or adolescent- mother attachment rather than examining other attachment relationships a child will form
(e.g., father-child attachment). Consequently, very little is known about the unique contribution of father-child attachment on adolescent adjustment (Rubin et al., 2004).
Although only a minority of studies have examined the relative contributions of mother and father attachments, it has become apparent that the way in which father attachments influence childhood and adolescent adjustment is distinctive. More research is needed to decipher the ways in which father attachment influences both daughters’ and sons’ adjustment.
Likewise, literature exploring the relative contribution of peer attachment and parent attachment on adolescent adjustment has not been well developed. Historically, peer attachment relationships have not been emphasized, despite the increasing influence of peers during development. Moreover, aspects of peer relationships can be targeted through school-based interventions on a large scale, whereas family relationships are less amenable to change in that they must be addressed at the individual level. Additionally, there is some support for the notion that peer attachments mediate the relationship 43 between parent attachments and adolescent adjustment (Rubin et al., 2004). However, more research is needed to disprove or confirm this hypothesis.
Another methodological issue in the attachment literature is that many studies examining peer attachment ask the child to report on friendships in general rather than a close friend in particular. This broad definition of peer attachment does not quite capture the foundation of attachment theory that emphasizes specific dyadic relationships (Rubin et al., 2004). Because of the above limitations, the present study will assess the unique contributions of peer and father attachment, in addition to mother attachment, and also examine peer attachment specific to the child’s closest friend among a high-risk adolescent population.
The Present Study
The present study will explore how mother, father, and peer attachments work together and separately to promote success in different domains of adolescent adjustment, including social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. The present study will differ from prior studies that also examined similar variables (e.g., Noom et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004) in a number of ways. For instance, the present study will use a rural, low SES, high-risk population, which will help to better generalize existing findings to this culture.
Moreover, the present study will utilize a multimodal assessment approach in operationalizing some of its variables. First, a teacher-report measure of social competence, in addition to a self-report measure, will be used to control for elevated self- perceptions often demonstrated by certain groups of children. The present study will also use targeted self-report measures designed specifically to assess peer aggression among 44 normative populations (e.g., Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory and
Peer Experiences Questionnaire) in addition to school discipline records to verify self- reported aggression. Finally, self-reported emotional adjustment will be gathered to obtain a comprehensive assessment of each participant’s social, behavioral, and emotional functioning.
Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were offered as a part of this project.
Hypothesis I
It was hypothesized that there would be a positive and significant relationship between measures of attachment with mother, father, and peer and measures of adjustment. Specific hypotheses regarding these correlations follow.
In the social domain, previous research has shown a trend for ratings of mother attachment to be more highly correlated with measures of social adjustment compared to the relationship between peer attachment and social adjustment. In a comparison of three attachment figures, it was expected that mother-child attachment ratings would be more highly correlated with measures of social adjustment (both self-report and teacher-report measures) compared to the correlation between peer-child attachment ratings and measures of social adjustment. However, it was not clear how father ratings would compare to mother and peer ratings; therefore, no specific hypotheses were made regarding father attachment. 45
In the behavioral domain, prior studies have suggested that there may be a stronger correlation between father-child attachment and behavioral adjustment as compared to mother-child attachment (Lieberman et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004).
Therefore, it was hypothesized that secure father-child attachment would be more strongly correlated with fewer behavioral problems and lower levels of aggression as compared to mother or peer attachment relationships.
Given prior research in the emotional domain, the relationship between ratings of maternal attachment and measures of emotional adjustment would be stronger than the relationship between peer attachment and emotional adjustment (Gullone & Robinson,
2005). However, it was unclear how the correlation between maternal attachment and emotional adjustment would compare to the correlation between paternal attachment and emotional adjustment.
Hypothesis II
Given Rubin et al.’s (2004) work demonstrating the moderating effects of friendship quality, it was hypothesized that peer attachment relationships may serve as a mediator of the relationship between parental attachment relationships (both mother and father) and measures of social, behavioral, and emotional adjustment.
Exploratory Analysis III
Previous research has emphasized the importance of considering different elements of attachment relationships (Gullone & Robinson, 2005). In line with Gullone and Robinson’s (2005) study that found trust, communication, and alienation for both 46 parental and peer attachments to be related to self-esteem among adolescents, it may be the case that subtypes of attachment relationships differentially relate to various adjustment outcomes. Given the findings of Gullone and Robinson’s (2005) work, it was expected that there would be a difference in the way the three domains of attachment security (i.e., trust, communication, and alienation) relate to each measure of adjustment for each mother, father, and peer attachment relationships (i.e., different domains of attachment would differentially relate to social adjustment in young adolescents).
Hypothesis IV
Prior research has revealed that girls report stronger peer attachment relationships than do boys. In addition, extant studies have reported that boys and girls do not differ in their strength of mother or father attachments. Therefore, it was expected that boys and girls in the present study would differ in strength of peer attachment relationships.
Specifically, in line with prior research, it was hypothesized that girls would report stronger attachment relationships with peer attachment figures compared to boys.
Hypothesis V
Previous studies have revealed that level of adjustment in various domains of functioning are related to both the gender of the adolescent and the gender of the parent
(i.e., positive attachment to mother and father are associated with adjustment in different domains for boys and girls). Specifically, it was hypothesized that boys’ ratings of attachment to father would be more negatively correlated with measures of aggression than the relationship between girls’ ratings of attachment to father and measures of 47 aggression. In addition, it was hypothesized that boys’ ratings of attachment to mother would be more strongly correlated with measures of social competence compared to the relationship between girls’ ratings of attachment to mother and social competence. This was expected to hold true for both self-reported and teacher-rated measures of social competence. Lastly, it was hypothesized that gender specific attachment relationships would differentially relate to measures of emotional adjustment. Specifically, it was hypothesized that girls’ ratings of attachment to mother and father separately would be more strongly correlated with measures of emotional adjustment compared to the relationship between boys’ ratings of attachment to each parent and emotional adjustment measures.
Method
Participants
One hundred twenty-nine 5th (50%) and 6th grades students attending a rural
Southeastern middle school during the 2005-2006 school year were included in the
current evaluation. More specifically, the sample consisted of all 5th and 6th grades
students in the school. These students were enrolled in an 18-week school-wide Life
Choices course at this school, consisting of social skills training and bully prevention
components during the 2005-2006 school year. There were no other exclusion or
inclusion criteria. The final sample was evenly distributed across the two grades (i.e., 50
percent in each), and nearly equally represented by males (i.e., 54 percent) and females.
Seven students were omitted from use in the analyses because they did not have any of
the three independent variable measures (mother, father, and peer attachment measures) 48 completed. Those that were omitted were either absent during one or more of the data collection days or refused to participate. It is important to note that the sample sizes differ in the analyses based on the number of students that completed each measure. Most of the participants (88%) were either 10- or 11-years old, ranging from 9 to 13 years of age.
Ninety-two percent of the sample identified themselves as Caucasian, one participant labeled herself as African-American and four children indicated that they are biracial.
The sample’s racial composition accurately reflects the overall lack of diversity within the school and community (U.S. Census, 2000). Approximately half (48%) of the children reported living with both of their biological parents, 17% of them live in single parent homes (with either mom or dad), and 23% of the sample lives with one biological parent and one step-parent. The remaining children reported living either with a grandparent (2%), foster or adoptive parents (3%), or biological parents and extended family members (7%).
Census data from the year 2000 was obtained on the three small towns that funnel into this rural, Southeaster Ohio school district (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The total population for the three towns combined is just under 3000 persons with 96.5% of these individuals being Caucasian. The median household income for 1999 was $23,929;
$24,018; and $30,500 for each of the three small cities with the average household size being around 2.5 individuals. Between 20 and 24% of the families living in this area fall below the poverty level. 49
Procedures
The current research project utilized existing data collected during a large-scale program evaluation of a prevention curriculum focused on bullying prevention and promotion of social competency at a rural public middle school in Southeast Ohio.
Specifically, for the purposes of the current evaluation, following student completion of the course, de-identified participant data was made available to the current investigator to investigate the set of research questions developed in this paper, based on self-report and teacher-report questionnaires completed at the outset of program implementation. In addition, de-identified records of student disciplinary infractions were also provided to the current investigator.
As part of the larger program evaluation, curriculum implementation and data collection followed certain procedures. Namely, during the 2004-2005 school year, the building principal responded to the combined academic and socioemotional needs of many local students by proposing a new social skills course to the superintendent of schools and local school board. The rationale for the course was based on continued significant academic deficits among middle school students, despite considerable academic enrichment programs during previous school years. Upon approval of the new course, program implementation and evaluation was scheduled for the 2005-2006 academic year.
In the fall of that year, following school guidelines pertaining to parental notification and child participation, parents were informed in writing at the beginning of the school year that all middle school students would participate in a class focused on 50 building social skills, academic skills (e.g., studying, organization), and helping students get along better. As this course was incorporated into standard curriculum, participation was mandatory. In order to capture the effectiveness of the new curriculum, the school worked with Dr. Alvarez to develop program evaluation that would capture the various outcomes of interest for the school. Target outcomes were informed by a series of needs assessments conducted during prior years (e.g., CTC), and included a) socioemotional barriers to classroom learning and behavior, b) risk factors of violence and bullying, c) self-esteem, and d) possible correlates of violence and drug use. All classes that participated in the curriculum were asked to complete the program evaluation.
Participants understood that the evaluation was completely confidential and their completion of the forms would not be tied in any way to their grade in the class. The data utilized in the present study was from Time 1 of the data collection for program evaluation.
During the program evaluation, students were given the questionnaire packets during the third and fourth weeks of school prior to the onset of the social skills curriculum by the prevention facilitators and the classroom teacher. The facilitators instructed the students how to complete the questionnaires and read some of the questions aloud, depending on the reading ability of the students. Students understood that all of their responses would be confidential. Additionally, the classroom teacher completed a short teacher-report measure regarding student social functioning. The teacher was given the questionnaires during the seventh week of school and was allowed four weeks for completion. 51
In order to maintain anonymity of student responses, the following procedures were followed. First, each child was provided a code number. A key containing student names and code numbers was kept in a locked storage area by the teacher and building principal to allow for de-identification and coding of teacher reports and school disciplinary records. In addition, pre-coded packets were provided to facilitators to administer to students during program evaluation periods, such that data received could not be connected back to the student based on his/her questionnaires. The data key was not available to research staff that had contact with measures completed by students.
Following completion of the Life Choices class and associated program evaluation conducted by the school, de-identified data from self-report, teacher evaluation, and school records was made available to the current investigator for research purposes.
Measures
Measure of Attachment
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA). Armsden and Greenberg developed the IPPA (see Appendix A) in 1987 to assess the quality of perceived parent and peer attachment. Since then, the measure has been revised and another section was added to explore mother and father attachment scores separately. The revised version of the IPPA was utilized in the present study. The IPPA is composed of three separate 25 item self-report questionnaires. Each questionnaire asks the same questions, with the wording changed slightly to capture the different relationships (i.e., once each with mother, father, and closest friend in mind). Responses were recorded on a five-point scale, ranging from “almost never or never true” to “almost always or always true”. 52
Rather than providing an attachment classification (e.g., secure or ambivalent), the measure provides an overall perceived attachment security score. The overall attachment scale is devised of three subscales (trust, communication, and alienation) and is computed by reverse scoring the alienation subscale and then adding the scales together. Items for the measures were created based on Bowlby’s (1969) definition of attachment and factor analysis revealed three main factors that accounted for 92% of the total variance
(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The degree of adolescent perceived trust in a relationship refers to the extent to which the adolescent believes the attachment figure recognizes and appreciates the adolescent’s wants and needs. The communication subscale measures how the adolescent views the attachment figure in terms of understanding and sensitivity to his or her feelings. The alienation subscale assesses for emotional detachment from the attachment figure and anger directed toward the figure.
Although the samples with which the IPPA was originally tested were between the ages of 16 and 20 years, the instrument has also been successfully used with samples of young adolescents (Armsden & Greenberg, 1988; Simons et al., 2001). According to
Armsden and Greenberg (n.d.), test-retest reliability in a 3 week interval ranged from .86 to .93. In addition, internal reliabilities were .87 for mother attachment, .89 for father attachment, and .92 for peers. Satisfactory convergent validity has been demonstrated by correlations with constructs such as family conflict, support, and cohesion (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987). Research has also demonstrated the predictive validity of the IPPA as evidenced by its strong correlation with adjustment measures (Armsden & Greenberg,
1987). 53
Measures of Social Competence
Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire-Revised (ICQ-R). Buhrmester developed the original ICQ in 1988 for use with college students. The revised ICQ (see
Appendix B) is a 40 item self-report questionnaire designed to assess adolescent social competence with the following subscales: initiation of relationships, asserting influence, conflict resolution, self-disclosure, and providing emotional support. The measure has been used with children as young as 11 years of age and with adults through mid-life.
Buhrmester (n.d.) reported that test-retest reliability was moderate at a 4 week interval with coefficients ranging from .69 to .89 for the five scales. Additionally, internal consistency coefficients were found to be between .76 and .87.
School Social Skills (S3). The S3 (see Appendix E) was developed in 1984 to be a
teacher-reported assessment of elementary through high school aged students’ social
strengths and weaknesses. This 40 item questionnaire taps four broad areas of observable
and socially competent behaviors, namely, adult relations, peer relations, following
school rules, and classroom behavior. Teachers rate individual students’ behaviors using
a six point Likert scale, and it takes about 10 minutes per student to complete. The
present study only analyzed the adult relations and peer relations subscales as teacher-
reported measures of social competence. Test-retest reliability coefficients range from .78
to .97 (a 10 to 21 day interval) and inter-rater reliability ranges from .65 to .91 (Brown,
Black, & Downs, 1984). Validity information was not provided in the S3 manual. 54
Measures of Behavioral Adjustment
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory (RAASI). The RAASI (see
Appendix C) was developed by Reynolds in 2001. It is a 32 item self-report questionnaire constructed as a brief screening measure to evaluate adolescents’ overall psychological adjustment, including antisocial behavior, anger control problems, emotional distress, and positive self (i.e., self esteem and sociability) subscales. Reynolds (2001) reported that the internal consistency for the RAASI was found to be moderate to high with values ranging from .71 to .92. In addition, the RAASI scales demonstrate moderately high test- retest reliability with coefficients ranging from .83 to .89 at a two week interval. All but 7 of the 32 items were above a correlation coefficient of .4 for content validity. The
Antisocial Behavior (AB) scale of the RAASI was used to evaluate behavioral adjustment.
Personal Experience Questionnaire (PEQ). The Peer Experiences Questionnaire is a self-report measure developed by Vernberg, Jacobs and Herschberger (1999) to measure frequency of aggressive behaviors both from the victim and aggressor point of view (see Appendix D). The measure includes nine questions in each of three sections asking about the frequency of various physically or relationally aggressive behaviors.
Each section asks the same questions, with the wording changed slightly to capture the different viewpoints. The measure asks questions related to how often a student has been a victim, an aggressor, or a witness to aggressive behaviors and yields three scales:
Victimization of Self (VS), Victimization of Others (VO), and Bystander view of
Victimization (BV). The present study only utilized the Victimization of Others (VO) 55 subscale. The VO scale was previously tested and found to have high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α=.78 (Vernberg et al., 1999). In the present study, the victimization of other scale demonstrated convergent construct validity with its significant correlation with school disciplinary infractions (r=.32, p<0.001).
School disciplinary infractions were accessed to obtain a school-reported measure of aggression and antisocial behavior. The number of transgressions committed by each student in a sixth month period (from August 2005 through January 2006) was utilized as a measure of behavioral adjustment.
Measure of Emotional Adjustment
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory (RAASI). The Emotional
Distress (ED) and Positive Self (PS) subscales of the RASSI (see Appendix C) was used to evaluate the emotional adjustment of each participant. See above for a full description of this measure.
Results
Descriptive Statistics for the Sample
Descriptive characteristics of each independent and dependent variable used in the study were conducted (see Table 1). Of note, for each of the RAASI subscales, low scores indicate better adjustment (i.e., a negative correlation between a RAASI subscale and attachment indicates that as attachment increases, adjustment increases). An examination of the IPPA revealed significant relations across the attachment figures.
Namely, each attachment measure was found to be significantly correlated (mother- 56 father: r=.42, p<0.001; mother-peer: r=.39, p<0.001; father-peer: r=.52, p<0.001).
Overall, the sample rated mother attachments as the strongest (M=103.67, SD=18.21), peer attachment relationships in the middle (M=97.39, SD=18.65), and father attachments the weakest (M=96.02, SD=23.70). Paired samples t-test revealed that the sample rated mother attachments significantly stronger than father attachments
(t(88)=2.46, p<.05). There was no significant difference between mother attachment and peer attachment or peer attachment and father attachment.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Measures
Variable N Mean SD Skew SE
IPPA Mother Attachment 106 103.67 18.22 -1.08 .24 Father Attachment 98 96.02 23.70 -.78 .24 Peer Attachment 92 97.39 18.65 -.60 .25
ICQ Self-report Social Competence 93 122.66 33.92 -.15 .25
S3 Teacher-report Adult Relations 121 47.31 11.48 -.66 .22 Teacher-report Peer Relations 119 58.16 13.85 -.12 .22
RAASI Emotional Distress 111 17.15 3.88 .12 .23 Positive Self 119 9.74 2.41 .69 .22 Antisocial Behavior 112 11.08 2.66 1.24 .23
PEQ Bullying Others 115 12.64 5.39 3.18 .23
School Disciplinary Infractions 122 3.25 5.18 2.02 .22 Note: IPPA = Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment; ICQ = Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire; S3 = School Social Skills; RAASI = Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory; PEQ = Peer Experience Questionnaire.
57
Additionally, an evaluation of the normality of the distributions revealed that all variables were significantly skewed except the self-report measure of social competence
(ICQ), based on the non-significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality (ICQ, p=.20).
Skewed distributions are to be expected when utilizing psychological measures with a normal population. Log and square root transformations were unable to make the data normally distributed; therefore, the untransformed data was utilized in all analyses. It is suspected that the possibility of type II error is more likely than type I because findings are generally diminished with non-normal samples (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). In other words, it is likely that significant effects could have gone undetected as a consequence of the skewed data.
Results for Hypothesis I
To explore the relationships between each attachment figure (mother, father, and peer) and each measure of adjustment, correlation analyses were conducted and hand calculations were performed to determine whether the correlations were significantly different between attachment figures. Specifically correlational analyses examining the relationships between each attachment figure (mother, father, and peer) individually with each dependent variable or measure of adjustment were conducted. Following the correlational analyses, calculations were completed by hand to determine if the various correlations are significantly different by converting each r value into a z score and then calculating a zobs for each pair of correlations being compared (Pallant, 2005). If the zobs value was outside of the -1.96 and +1.96 range, the correlations were considered significantly different. 58
As shown in Table 2, teacher-report measures of social competence (S3) did not
correlate significantly with any of the measures of attachment. Excluding teacher-report
measures and school disciplinary infractions, perceived maternal attachment was
significantly related to all other measures of adjustment. Alternatively, perceived paternal
attachment was not significantly related to any of the measures of adolescent adjustment.
However, the relationships between father attachment and emotional distress
(RAASI) and positive sense of self (RAASI) approached significance at the p<0.10 level.
Peer attachment was significantly correlated with self-reported social competence and negatively correlated with both self-reported bullying and number of disciplinary infractions. The relationship between peer attachment and positive sense of self approached significance at the p<0.10 level, such that strong peer attachments were correlated with increased positive feelings of self.
Following the correlational analyses, calculations were computed by hand. No significant findings were revealed in the social domain. In opposition to the proposed hypothesis regarding behavioral adjustment, maternal attachment was more significantly negatively correlated with antisocial behavior than were the correlations between father or peer attachment and antisocial behavior (zobs =-3.08 and -2.65, respectively). In
addition, mother attachment was more negatively correlated with self-reported bullying
(PEQ) as compared to father attachment (zobs=-2.69). As expected, hand calculations
revealed that maternal attachment was more closely related to positive sense of self than
were the relationships between paternal or peer attachment relationships and positive
sense of self (zobs =-2.79 and -2.70, respectively). Recall, for each RAASI subscale, 59
Table 2
Two-tailed Correlations between Measures of Adjustment and Attachment Figures
S3: S3: ICQ: RAASI: RAASI: RAASI: PEQ: School Adult Peer Social Emotional Positive Antisocial Bullying Conduct Relations Relations Competence Distress Self Behavior Others Reports
Mother Attachment -.02 -.06 .23* -.30** -.41** -.38** -.36** -.08 Trust -.01 -.08 .20† -.17† -.47** -.30** -.31** -.09 Communication .01 -.03 .27* -.24* -.39** -.32** -.27** -.09 Alienation -.01 -.12 .14 -.37** -.20* -.28** -.15 -.04
Father Attachment .08 .07 .15 -.21† -.18† -.10 .01 -.13 Trust .04 .09 .22* -.11 -.21* -.06 .02 -.08 Communication .10 .05 .15 -.17† -.15 -.06 .03 -.09 Alienation .03 -.03 .01 -.27** -.07 -.19† -.15 -.18†
Peer Attachment -.00 .06 .44** -.10 -.18† -.16 -.23* -.25* Trust .04 .06 .38** -.05 -.23* -.19† -.26* -.18† Communication .04 .06 .48** -.02 -.13 -.21* -.15 -.19* Alienation -.06 .03 .03 -.28** .04 -.19† -.10 -.18† Note. † Denotes a trend with p<0.10 (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at p<0.05 (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at p<0.01 (2-tailed). 60 higher scores are equated with higher impairment, such that a negative relationship between a RAASI subscale (e.g., antisocial behavior, positive sense of self, and emotional distress) and a measure of attachment suggests that strong attachment relationships are related with better adjustment.
Correlation analyses also revealed gender-specific attachment relationships (see
Table 3). It is important to note that while father attachment was not significantly related to any of the measures of adjustment for the full sample, father attachment was significantly negatively correlated with antisocial behavior (i.e., strong father attachment is correlated with fewer antisocial behaviors) and disciplinary infractions for the girls only. In addition, the relationship between emotional distress and paternal attachment approached significance among the girls.
Table 3
Summary of Significant Correlations by Gender
ICQ: RAASI: RAASI: RAASI: PEQ: School Social Emotional Positive Antisocial Bullying Conduct Competence Distress Self Behavior Others Reports
Boys Mother Attachment .37* -.16 -.49** -.11 -.25† -.07 Father Attachment .07 -.15 -.17 .13 .04 .03 Peer Attachment .44** -.17 -.18 .09 -.19 .05
Girls Mother Attachment .12 -.46** -.34* -.60** -.44** -.12 Father Attachment .14 -.26† -.18 -.32* .03 -.45** Peer Attachment .27 -.10 -.37** -.40** -.29 -.69** Note. † Denotes a trend with p<0.10 (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at p<0.05 (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at p<0.01 (2-tailed).
61
Results for Hypothesis II
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the mediating role of peer attachment in the relation between parental attachment and measures of adjustment.
Baron and Kenny (1986) provide the following four criteria that must be met for a variable to be considered a mediator: 1) the independent variable (mother or father attachment) must be significantly related to the dependent variable (adjustment measure),
2) the independent variable must be significantly related to the mediator (peer attachment), 3) and the mediator must be significantly related to the dependent variable, and 4) the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must significantly decrease after controlling for the mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Peer adjustment was considered a mediating variable if it significantly reduced the effect of mother and father attachment on adjustment.
Preliminary analyses were conducted prior to the regression analyses. Correlation analyses were utilized to examine criteria one and two (i.e., correlations between the independent variables and the measures of adjustment and peer attachment). Correlation analyses revealed that mother and father attachment were significantly correlated with peer attachment (r=.39, p<0.001; r=.52, p<0.001, respectively). These analyses also revealed that self-reported social competence (ICQ), positive sense of self (RAASI) and antisocial behavior (RAASI) were significantly related to mother or father attachment
(independent variables) and peer attachment (mediator variable) (see Table 2). T-tests were conducted to determine if gender or age were significantly related to the measures of adjustment (i.e., to determine if they should be used as covariates in the regression 62 equations). T-tests revealed that girls reported higher perceived social competence and also closer peer attachment relationships compared to boys.
For those variables found to be significantly correlated, hierarchical regression analyses were used as a test of mediation. In the first hierarchical regression equation, self-reported social competence (ICQ) served as the dependent measure. This regression analysis involved entering gender into the regression equation in the first step as a covariate, maternal attachment was added to the regression equation as the second step, and then peer attachment was entered in the third step. Positive sense of self (RAASI) served as the dependent variable in the second hierarchical regression analysis, which involved entering mother attachment as the first step of the analysis and then peer attachment was added as the second step. Both mother and father attachment were significantly related to antisocial behavior; therefore two regression equations were conducted for this dependent variable. In the first antisocial behavior regression equation, maternal attachment was entered in the first step and peer attachment was entered in the second step. In the second antisocial behavior regression equation, paternal attachment was entered in the first step and peer attachment was entered in the second step.
Post-hoc probing was performed to determine whether the drop in the total effect was significant upon entering the mediator into the model. Sobel’s test of significance, as described by Holmbeck (2002), was utilized to explore the significance of the mediator effects. Specifically, calculations were completed by hand to extrapolate the indirect effect of the model (i.e., the total effect minus the direct effect of the predictor on the dependent variable with the mediator in the model). For each hierarchical regression 63 equation, the standard error of the indirect effect was calculated with the following equation:
2 2 2 2 1/2 seindirect effect = [(byx )(sezyx ) + (bzyx )(seyx )]
The unstandardized beta of the indirect effect was calculated with the following equation:
bindirect effect = (byx)(bzyx)
Finally, the above values were used to find a z score for the model by dividing the beta
for the indirect effect by the standard error of the indirect effect. If the z value fell outside
of the -1.96 and +1.96 range, a z table was used to determine whether the p value was
significant (p<0.05), at which point peer attachment was considered a significant
mediator of the relationship between parental attachment and the dependent variable.
To find the values of byx and seyx, multiple linear regression was conducted examining the role of mother attachment as a predictor of peer attachment. As shown in
Table 4, post-hoc probing revealed that peer attachment was a significant mediator of the relationship between maternal attachment and perceived social competence (ICQ; z=2.35, p<0.05). The other regression analyses examining the mediating properties of peer attachment found null results.
64
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Perceived Social Competence
DV: ICQ B SE β Sig. R2 ∆R2
Step 1 .06 .06 Gender 16.41 7.70 .24 .04
Step 2 .11 .05 Gender 16.32 7.54 .24 .03 Mother Attachment .42 .21 .23 .0
Step 3 .20 .09 Gender 6.94 7.90 .10 .38 Mother Attachment .16 .22 .09 .45 Peer Attachment .66 .23 .36 .01 Note. Each predictor was entered as a separate step. DV = Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ).
Exploratory analyses examining perceived social competence as a mediator of the relationship between maternal attachment and peer attachment, approached significance
with a z value of 1.74 (p=.08) (see Table 5).
Table 5
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting Peer Attachment
DV: Peer Attachment B SE β Sig. R2 ∆R2 Step 1 .15 .15 Gender 14.38 4.03 .39 .00
Step 2 .30 .15 Gender 14.29 3.68 .38 .00 Mother Attachment .40 .10 .39 .00
Step 3 .37 .07 Gender 11.74 3.62 .32 .00 Mother Attachment .33 .10 .32 .00 Social Competence .16 .06 2.8 .01 Note. Each predictor was entered as a separate step. DV = Peer Attachment (IPPA).
65
Results for Exploratory Analysis III
Correlational analyses were conducted to explore the relationships between the three domains of attachment (trust, communication, and alienation) and each adjustment measure. The results of the correlational analyses are shown in Table 2. The trust subscale for each of the three attachment figures was negatively correlated with the positive sense of self subscale (RAASI; p<0.05), such that high trust is associated with an increase in positive sense of self. The trust subscale for each of the three attachment figures was also negatively correlated with perceived social competence (ICQ; each significant at p<0.05 level except maternal trust at p<0.10). Additionally, the alienation subscale for each of the three attachment figures was significantly and negatively correlated with emotional distress (RAASI; p<0.01) and antisocial behavior (RAASI; p<0.10) for each of the three attachment figures (i.e., given the nature of the scales, as perceived alienation decreases, antisocial behavior and emotional distress also decrease).
The maternal communication subscale was significantly correlated with every measure of adjustment, excluding teacher-report scales and school disciplinary infractions. The paternal communication subscale was not significantly related to any of the measures of adjustment; however it approached significance (p<0.10) in its correlation with emotional distress (RAASI), such that strong paternal communication was correlated with less emotional distress. In addition, peer communication was significantly negatively correlated with antisocial behavior (i.e., strong peer communication was related to fewer antisocial behaviors) and school disciplinary infractions. Moreover, the strongest 66 correlation among all of the measures was between peer communication and self-reported social competence (ICQ).
Additional calculations were completed by hand to determine if any of the domains of attachment significantly differ in the strength of their relationship with the adjustment measures by converting each r value into a z score and then calculating a zobs for each pair of correlations being compared. If the zobs value fell outside of the -1.96 and
+1.96 range, the correlations were considered significantly different. Results revealed
that there was a statistically significant difference in the strength of the correlation
between positive sense of self and two of the subscales within the mother attachment
scale. Specifically, the correlation between perceived mother alienation and positive
sense of self (RAASI) was significantly stronger than the association between perceived
mother trust and positive sense of self (zobs=2.21) (i.e., mother alienation explained
significantly more of the variance in positive sense of self than did mother trust). In
addition, perceived peer trust (zobs=2.72) and communication (zobs=3.63) explained
significantly more of the variance in perceived social competence (ICQ) than peer
alienation.
Results for Hypothesis IV
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the attachment scores
(mother, father, and peer) for boys as compared to girls in an effort to evaluate whether
differential gender effects exist across the different figures of attachment. Specifically, it
was hypothesized that girls would report stronger attachment relationships with peer
attachment figures compared to boys. Results indicated that boys (M=90.54, SD=18.08) 67 and girls (M=104.86, SD=16.41) scored significantly different on the measure of peer attachment. Specifically, as expected, girls reported significantly stronger peer attachments than boys (t(90)=-3.965, p<0.001, eta squared=.15). There was no significant difference in boys’ and girls’ mean scores on the measures of mother and father attachment.
Results for Hypothesis V
A series of two-way between-groups univariate analyses of variance were conducted to explore the effects of gender and attachment (mother, father, and peer analyzed separately) on each measure of adjustment (self-reported social competence, teacher-reported adult and peer relations, emotional distress, positive sense of self, antisocial behavior, bullying others, and school disciplinary infractions). For these analyses only, a categorical attachment variable was generated by creating three equal groups (e.g., those adolescents falling in the lowest one-third of the sample in terms of mother attachment were placed in the low maternal attachment group) such that a low, medium, and high attachment group was created for each of the three attachment figures
(i.e., mother, father, peer). In this, children received a low, medium, or high classification based on their scores on each of the attachment measures. For example, a child could fall in the low group in terms of maternal attachment, the medium paternal attachment group, and the high peer attachment group. Table 6 depicts the attachment score range used for assignment to three categorical groups so that each group had the same sample size.
68
Table 6
Attachment Score Range for Assignment to Categorical Groups
Low Group Middle Group High Group Range Range Range
Mother Attachment < 99 100-115 > 116 n=106
Father Attachment <86 87-112 >113 n=98
Peer Attachment <88 89-110 >111 n=92 Note. Each attachment measure was divided into three equal groups.
Notably, preliminary analyses revealed that relatively more (i.e., >40%) of the girls in the sample fell into the high maternal, paternal, and peer attachment groups, as compared to boys in the sample (i.e., 25-29%) (see Table 7).
Table 7
Percentages of Boys and Girls in the Low, Medium, and High Attachment Groups
Mother Attachment Father Attachment Peer Attachment
Boys Low Group 36% 41% 52% Medium Group 39% 29% 23% High Group 25% 29% 25%
Girls Low Group 30% 25% 14% Medium Group 26% 34% 39% High Group 44% 40% 48%
One-way analysis of variance revealed significant gender main effects (see Table
8). Specifically, boys and girls significantly differed in their perception of social competence, such that girls (N=46) reported higher perceived social competence than 69 boys (N=47). Additionally, boys and girls differed in the number of conduct reports received in a six month period, such that boys (N=66) received more conduct reports than girls (N=56). No other significant gender main effects were detected at the p<0.05 level.
Table 8
One-way Analysis of Variance Exploring Gender Effects
Boys Girls df F Sig.
Social Competence 114.57(35.34) 130.91(30.63) 91 5.67 .02
Disciplinary Infractions 4.65(6.02) 1.61(3.33) 120 11.36 .00
The two-way between-group ANOVAs also indicated that boys and girls scored
significantly different in terms of how attachment influences adjustment in the behavioral
domain (see Table 7). There was a significant difference in the effect of peer attachment
on degree of self-reported bullying behavior for boys and girls (PEQ; F(2, 81)=3.35,
p=.04, partial eta squared=.08). More precisely, girls in the low peer attachment group
reported increased frequency of bullying others compared to boys in the low attachment
group, while girls in the medium and high peer attachment groups reported fewer
instances of bullying others compared to boys in the medium and high peer attachment
groups (see Table 9). However, Levene’s test of equality of error variances was
significant (p<0.001); therefore, variance across the groups was not equal. In the event
that Levene’s test is significant, p<0.01 is typically more acceptable to use than p<0.05 to
determine significance (Pallant, 2001), in which case, the interaction effect would not be
considered significant. 70
Table 9
Mean Total Score for Bullying Others Scale among Boys and Girls within Low, Medium, and High Peer Attachment Groups
Low Peer Medium Peer High Peer Attachment Attachment Attachment
Boys (M (SD)) 13.76 (4.25) 11.45 (3.64) 12.18 (5.19)
Girls (M (SD)) 19.80 (13.16) 10.50 (1.34) 11.76 (3.05) Note. Higher scores indicate increased frequency of bullying others.
Also in the behavioral domain of adjustment, the interaction effect approached significance in the analysis examining the effect of gender and paternal attachment on
antisocial behavior (F(2, 86)=2.45, p<0.10, partial eta squared=.05). Comparable to the
bullying others results, girls in the low paternal attachment group (M=11.67) reported
more antisocial behaviors compared to boys in the low attachment group (M=11.21),
while girls in the medium and high paternal attachment groups (M=10.00 and 9.82,
respectively) reported fewer instances of bullying others compared to boys in the medium
and high attachment groups (M=11.15 and 11.93, respectively). Additionally, the
interaction effect examining the effect of gender and peer attachment on the number of
disciplinary infractions approached significance (F(2, 86)=2.61, p<0.10, partial eta
squared=.05). Girls in the low peer attachment group (M=5.00) had more disciplinary
infractions than boys in the low attachment group (M=3.84), while girls in the medium and high peer attachment groups (M=1.00 and .38, respectively) had fewer disciplinary infractions compared to boys in the medium and high attachment groups (M=5.18 and
3.17, respectively). 71
Discussion
The present study examined the separate and combined effects of maternal, paternal, and peer attachment relationships on social, behavioral, and emotional domains of young adolescent adjustment. Moreover, the present study addressed the limitations in the existing literature by considering the unique contributions of father attachment, investigating the mediating role of peer attachment in the relation between parental attachment and measures of adjustment, and highlighting the way in which gender- specific attachment relationships differentially relate to adjustment in multiple domains.
Finally, the present study explored the individual facets of attachment (i.e., trust, communication, and alienation) in relation to multiple measures of adjustment. Overall, the results highlighted the importance of maternal attachment on each domain of adjustment and of the exploration of gender-specific attachment relationships. These results point to a number of important implications for how one understands extant literature and future educational and clinical directions.
Father Attachment
The literature suggests that paternal attachment plays a unique and important role in the social, behavioral, and emotional domains of adolescent adjustment. However, the manner by which paternal attachment influences adjustment among adolescents is uncertain because few existing studies have specifically investigated attachment relationships between children and/or adolescents and their fathers. The present study attempted to address this gap in the literature by examining father attachment separate from mother attachment. Results showed evidence of a general trend for paternal 72 attachment to be related to emotional adjustment. Specifically, positive correlations were found between paternal attachment and positive sense of self and paternal attachment was found to be negatively related to emotional distress. However, these correlations approached, but did not reach, statistical significance. This trend is consistent with the literature finding that paternal attachment is related to emotional adjustment (Noom et al.,
1999; Rubin et al., 2004). However, the lack of significant associations between paternal attachment and social and behavioral adjustment is inconsistent with the findings of the few studies that had previously explored this question (e.g., Coleman, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004; Simons et al., 2001).
Interestingly, upon further analysis, when the data file was split by gender, significant gender-specific patterns were found. Specifically, father attachment proved to be significantly negatively related to antisocial behavior and disciplinary infractions for girls only. In addition, the negative correlation between father attachment and emotional distress approached significance for girls but not boys. Overall, these findings suggest that gender plays a role in how attachment relationships influence adolescent adjustment.
This also indicates that fathers may be particularly influential on behavioral functioning among girls. This relationship may exist because fathers demonstrate disparate parenting styles toward girls as compared to boys (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). As an example, studies have shown that fathers use a harsher style of interaction with their sons than their daughters (Lovas, 2005).
Although the present study only found significant correlations between paternal attachment and female externalizing behaviors, previous research has suggested that 73 paternal attachment is related to fewer externalizing behaviors among both male and female adolescents (Lieberman et al., 1999; Rubin et al., 2004). The present investigation’s results also differ in that prior research has reported father attachment to be correlated with perceived social functioning (Coleman, 2003; Lieberman et al., 1999;
Rubin et al., 2004). These discrepant findings may be attributed to differing populations.
For instance, three of the five known studies examining father-specific attachment and its influence on adolescent adjustment utilized vastly different samples from the present study (e.g., metropolitan Washington D.C., suburban Montreal, and a sample in The
Netherlands with a wide range of SES). Two other studies did look at father attachment in low to middle class, rural populations, however, the sample in the present study does not approach middle class (Coleman, 2003; Simons et al., 2001).
Both this study as well as extant work in this area has supported the role of mother in a child’s adjustment. The current study found that paternal attachment also contributes in ways that are unique Although the present study found differing results from extant studies in the way in which paternal attachment positively contributes to facets of adolescent adjustment, the essential role of maternal attachment was confirmed.
The present study found maternal attachment to be correlated with all of the self-reported measures of adjustment. Moreover, mother attachment was found to be significantly more closely related to a positive sense of self, fewer self-reports of antisocial behavior, and less frequent bullying of others than was paternal attachment. These findings concur with the prior research that has consistently found that maternal attachment is significantly correlated with multiple indicators of adjustment. 74
It is possible that mother and father attachment relate to adjustment differently because, in general, mothers and fathers differentially relate with their children throughout development (Parke, 1995). For instance, on average fathers spend less actual time with their infants, and more of the time they do spend is in play activities that primarily involve motor movements and physical play (Parke, 1995). This is in contrast to mother-infant interactions that focus primarily on caregiving activities (e.g., feeding, changing) (Parke, 1995). Moreover, mother-infant play is generally characterized by reading and other less physical activities (e.g., playing with cognitively stimulating toys)
(Parke, 1995). Among adolescents, similar differences have been detected (Holmbeck,
Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). Father-son adolescent relationships are traditionally focused on leisure activities and the provision of practical advice (Holmbeck et al., 1995), whereas father-daughter relationships are much less close in general (Starrels, 1994). In turn, gender differences in both parenting styles and attachment relationships may uniquely influence adolescent adjustment across multiple domains of functioning.
Peer Attachment
Peer relationships are undoubtedly important to adolescent adjustment. However, the function of peer relationships changes as development progresses (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1992; Leaper, 2002). For instance, Furman and Buhrmester (1992) found differences in support seeking as a function of age, such that fourth graders rate their parents as their most frequent providers of support while seventh graders rate same-sex peers as first and parents as second. The present study examined children falling between these age groups, and the overall sample rated the mother attachment relationship as the 75 strongest, peer as second, and father as third. If older adolescents had been sampled, different results may have been uncovered due to this progression in development.
Among prior studies, few have articulated how peer attachments influence adjustment and also how it relates to parental attachments. The present study contributed to the existing literature by investigating this question. Specifically, analyses revealed that peer attachment relationships were significantly and positively related to perceived social competence and negatively correlated with bullying others and school disciplinary infractions. Additionally, the correlation between peer attachment and positive sense of self approached significance. The positive sense of self subscale measures both sociability and self-esteem; therefore, the present study’s findings support previous research indicating that mother attachment is significantly more closely related to high self-esteem compared to peer attachment (Gullone & Robinson, 2005; Noom et al.,
1999). In addition, the present study supports Rubin et al.’s (2004) findings that peer attachment is significantly related to perceived social competence and negatively correlated with externalizing problems. Overall, it seems that peers have a unique and important contribution to one’s overall adjustment; albeit less potent than that of the mother.
In previous research, peer relationships in general have been shown to moderate the relationship between mother attachment and measures of adjustment (Rubin et al.,
2004). This study advances this body of literature in two ways. First, the specific role of peer attachment had not been examined. In addition, based on the sequence by which attachment relationships are formed, the current investigator hypothesized that peer 76 attachment relationships may be better conceptualized in a mediating role. Study hypotheses were partially supported. The present study found that peer attachment was a significant mediator of the relationship between maternal attachment and perceived social competence. It is possible that the maternal attachment relationship lays the foundation for the ability to form strong peer attachments, which in turn leads to feelings of social competence. It is likely that peer attachment only becomes a mediator of this relationship among older children that are developmentally able to form strong peer attachments (i.e., peer attachment would likely not mediate this relationship in infants or toddlers). In addition, the equation examining peer attachment’s mediational properties in the relationship between paternal attachment and antisocial behavior approached, but did not reach, significance.
These data suggest that peer attachment uniquely contributes to adjustment among young adolescents. Given that peer attachment was significantly and negatively correlated with the number of disciplinary infractions whereas maternal and paternal attachment relationships were not, peer attachments may be targeted to help reduce discipline problems in the school setting. In particular, peer communication was most strongly related to the number of disciplinary infractions compared to peer trust and alienation. Universal prevention programs aimed at enhancing effective peer communication may serve to reduce school conduct problems. This research provides further support for the significant effects of peer mediation and other prevention programs that have been shown to reduce fighting (Thompson, 1996) and disciplinary referrals (Kinsewitz, 1996). 77
Gender Effects
Gender played a significant role across many of the findings reported in the present study. Boys and girls scored significantly different on measures of peer attachment, social competence, positive sense of self, and disciplinary infractions.
Overall, girls reported higher social competence and closer peer attachments compared to boys, while boys received more disciplinary infractions compared to girls. The finding that girls reported stronger peer attachment relationships as compared to boys has been consistently found in the literature (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Gullone & Robinson,
2005; Rubin et al., 2004; Wilkinson, 2004). This phenomenon may be explained by prior research indicating that girls’ social relationships grow increasingly important as development progresses and their peer relationships become more intimate (Lagerspetz,
Bjorkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988). Alternatively, boys’ peer relationships tend to be less intimate and more focused on engaging in similar activities (Galen & Underwood, 1997).
The present study also supports recent literature in finding that there are no significant gender effects for mother or father attachment (i.e., there was no significant difference in how boys and girls rated mother and father attachment) (Allen et al., 2004; Coleman,
2003; Laible et al., 2000).
Gender differences in the way in which attachment relates to adjustment were also revealed. Boys and girls only shared one significant correlation, namely, both boys’ and girls’ ratings of maternal attachment were significantly related to positive sense of self. In line with extant research (e.g., Cotterell, 1992; Rubin et al., 2004), much of the girls’ adjustment data was correlated with maternal attachment, whereas maternal attachment 78 had a relatively smaller impact on boys’ adjustment (with one exception). The exceptional finding in the boys’ data indicated that boys’ perceived social competence was significantly positively correlated with maternal and peer attachment relationships, however, these relationships were not significant for girls. This finding has also been consistently reported in literature (Cohn, 1990; Coleman, 2003).
Prior research exploring gender effects of attachment on the emotional domain of adjustment were supported in this study (Cotterell, 1992). For example, only girls’ peer attachment was significantly positively related to positive sense of self, whereas the relationship between peer attachment and positive sense of self did not reach significance for boys. In addition, maternal attachment was significantly negatively correlated with emotional distress and self-reported bullying for girls only. Likewise, in the behavioral domain, attachment relationships with all three attachment figures were significantly negatively correlated with antisocial behavior among girls. Finally, father and peer attachments were significantly negatively correlated with the number of disciplinary infractions for girls. Although maternal attachment was significantly correlated with reductions in bullying behavior and other self-reported antisocial behaviors, it seems that girls’ attachment relationships with their fathers and peers may be equally as important in facilitating adjustment in the behavioral domain.
Interesting trends were revealed by interaction effects in the behavioral domain of adjustment. For instance, analyses indicated that girls in the low peer attachment group reported increased rates of bullying others and received more disciplinary infractions compared to the boys in the low peer attachment group. Additionally, girls in the low 79 paternal attachment group reported more antisocial behaviors compared to boys in the low paternal attachment group. This trend for girls to fare worse than boys in terms of behavioral adjustment when in the low attachment group is reversed when comparing boys and girls in the medium and high attachment groups. Interestingly, boys in the high paternal attachment group had the highest mean score on the antisocial behavior scale compared to all other groups. This finding may best be explained by variables specific to attitudes toward antisocial behavior in the community that was sampled. Specifically, this community demonstrates high levels of favorable attitudes toward violence and substance use (Communities that Care, 2004). Moreover, the rates of arrest for violent offenses and rates of domestic violence are considerably higher than in other surrounding communities
(Communities that Care, 2004). Fathers in this community may not only send messages about violence in direct ways, but also through indirect methods such as modeling. Boys who have closer relationships with their fathers that harbor these favorable attitudes toward violence may be more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors and also to acknowledge participating in activities such as fighting or breaking the law. These data are similar to Simons et al. (2001) findings in that father-adolescent attachment was significantly and positively correlated with teacher-reported aggression. Although this is not a gender-specific finding, it may support the present study’s findings that a stronger attachment relationship with father can be associated with increased levels of aggression.
Another interesting trend revealed in that boys in the medium peer attachment group received the greatest number of disciplinary infractions compared to the low and high group and to all of the girl groups. It could be hypothesized that boys forming 80 medium attachment relationships may be developing relationships with a deviant peer group that encourages misbehavior at school leading to receiving an increased number of disciplinary infractions. It is speculated that boys falling in the high peer attachment group are forming strong relationships not based on acting out to gain attention or acceptance, whereas boys in the low attachment group are given less attention and may be trying to blend in.
These trends suggest that peer relationships can serve to decrease disciplinary infractions when boys form strong attachments with their peers. As recommended previously, universal programs aimed at fostering strong peer relationships may facilitate healthy adolescent adjustment in more than one domain. In addition, these results may provide useful suggestions with regard to important facets of family relationships that may be targeted in family therapy to enhance early adolescent adjustment. For instance, given the finding that maternal attachment is more strongly related to positive adjustment outcomes in this rural, high-risk sample, whereas strong father attachments may actually lead to more negative outcomes for boys such as increased antisocial behavior. This initially seemingly paradoxical finding could suggest a larger systemic issue based upon pervasive beliefs that antisocial behaviors, such as using drugs or alcohol, engaging in illegal behavior, and breaking rules, are acceptable and possibly even commendable in which for boys to engage. This also highlights the value in exploring parental attitudes and behaviors that may be specific to particular family or cultural backgrounds and, in turn, affect child adjustment in ways that we may typically not expect given extant 81 literature. Additional research with a larger sample of high-risk youth is needed to determine whether these trends could be significant effects.
Facets of Attachment: Trust, Communication, and Alienation
There is a strong trend in the attachment literature to focus on uncovering the differences between children reporting high versus low attachment relationships (i.e., secure versus insecure). However, there is only one known study (Gullone & Robinson,
2005) examining the different facets of attachment in relation to adolescent adjustment as delineated in the three subdomains of attachment on the IPPA (namely trust, communication, and alienation). The present study addressed this gap in the literature by examining the correlations between each subdomain of attachment with the various measures of adjustment. Given the lack of research in this area, the analyses were exploratory in nature.
The trust domain of attachment assesses the extent to which the adolescent believes the attachment figure respects and understands his or her wants and needs. More specifically, items on this scale assess for feelings of acceptance from parents and peers, reciprocal feelings of trust, and feelings of being understood. The results suggest that maternal, paternal, and peer trust are significantly related to emotional and social adjustment. Specifically, ratings of trust for each of the three attachment figures were significantly correlated with positive sense of self and perceived social competence. In addition, both mother and peer trust ratings were significantly associated with decreased bullying behavior and also fewer antisocial behaviors. 82
The communication subscale measures how the adolescent views the attachment figure in terms of understanding and sensitivity to his or her expression of feelings.
Specifically, the respondent is asked questions regarding the attachment figure’s acceptance of expressed feelings, the respondent’s inclination to share troubles with that person, and the likelihood that the attachment figure would inquire about bothersome issues. Results suggest that maternal communication was the most influential in terms of young adolescent adjustment because it was correlated with every self-report measure of adjustment, including social competence and positive sense of self, and negatively correlated with emotional distress, antisocial behavior, and bullying others. Peer communication was the strongest correlate of perceived social competence and was negatively associated with antisocial behavior. Paternal communication was not significantly correlated with any of the measures of adjustment; however it approached significance with emotional distress.
The alienation subscale assesses for emotional detachment from and anger directed toward the attachment figure. In particular, feeling ashamed when talking over problems with the attachment figure, getting easily upset around them, feeling angry at the figure, and receiving adequate attention from the figure were assessed. Feelings of maternal, paternal, and peer alienation were related to the emotional and behavioral domains of adjustment. Specifically, alienation was correlated with increased emotional distress and antisocial behavior.
Overall, the findings support Gullone & Robinson’s (2005) research indicating that parental (not specific to mother or father) and peer trust are related to emotional 83 adjustment (i.e., a measure of self-esteem) among adolescents. However, given that this study examined only one domain of adjustment (emotional) in relation to the facets of attachment, the findings from the present study provide new information to the field.
Additional research on this topic is needed to confirm these data and provide additional evidence for the protective qualities of specific attachment relationships.
Findings from the present study have a number of implications in terms of universal school-based intervention or prevention programs. Recall, peer attachment relationships in general and peer communication in particular was significantly associated with social competence, lower levels of antisocial behavior, and fewer disciplinary infractions. The findings of the present study highlight the importance of fostering children’s relationships in the school setting to enhance adjustment in multiple domains.
Given these and other similar findings, this suggests that specific features of adolescent relationships may be targeted to enhance adjustment. Furthermore, one could argue that social skills, or more specifically, communication skills, should be an integral part of each child’s education. Facilitating the acquisition of skills related to effective communication with peers may enhance children’s perceptions of social competence, reduce antisocial behavior, and reduce the number of disciplinary infractions in the school setting.
Given the finding that the three facets of attachment (as measured by the IPPA) differentially relate to measures of adjustment, attachment would be best conceptualized as a multidimensional, rather than a unidimensional, construct. This research supports
Bowlby’s (1969) original definition of attachment that captures the complexity of human 84 relationships by holding that strong attachment relationships provide children with love, basic human necessities, and safety from danger. These elements then in turn help children to learn to trust attachment figures and generalize this trust to other relationships.
In addition, the aforementioned elements promote the acquisition of effective communication skills. Although alienation is not directly addressed in this definition, it is reasonable to infer that the presence of feelings of alienation would result in the opposite of a trusting and communicative relationship.
Limitations
The present study has several limitations. First,, utilizing a normal sample resulted in skewed data on measures of social and behavioral dysfunction because, as expected, most of the children reported being well-adjusted. Unfortunately, negatively skewed data increases the chance of type II error (i.e., failure to reject the null hypothesis when it should be rejected) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Given this information, significant results may have gone undetected due to psychometric issues. Therefore, trends in the data with p<0.10 were presented.
Although a strength of the present study was that multiple informants were utilized in data collection (e.g., students, teacher reports, and school records), it is a limitation that parent report measures were not available to the researcher. Especially when examining the role of parental attachment relationships on adjustment, a parent perspective would have provided much additional rich data. Specifically, parents observe children in multiple contexts (i.e., more than merely school or situations with peers), and they have a unique understanding of the child’s social, behavioral, and emotional history. 85
It could be deemed as a limitation that teacher-report measures of adult and peer social competence did not correlate significantly with any of the student-report measures of attachment or even measures of adjustment. It is unclear why the teacher-reports were not related to any of the other variables. It is conceivable that having just one teacher’s perspective may have decreased the chances of finding significant results. The participating teacher may have felt reluctant to answer honestly or may have minimized the struggles she witnesses in the school due to her answers not being anonymous. In addition, the students in the sample were newer to the middle school as they were in the
5th and 6th grades. This afforded the participating teacher fewer opportunities to observe
each child’s behavior. However, this typically reflects the extent of interactions that most
teachers have with their students at the middle school level (i.e., they are no longer with
one teacher for the entire day). Thus, teacher-report measures of middle or high school
adolescents’ behavior may be less reliable than the teacher report of an elementary aged
child’s behavior. It is also possible that the teacher’s report of social competence may
have yielded null results because secure attachment relationships may result in children’s
perceived feelings of social competence rather than an actual acquiring of social skills
(Coleman, 2003). Clearly further evaluation of inter-rater agreement between student and
teacher reports of functioning are warranted.
Finally, with one exception (Aviezer et al., 2002) studies examining adolescent attachment and adjustment outcomes are cross-sectional in nature (as is the present study). This is problematic because direction of causality in the relation between attachment and adjustment is unable to be determined. Clearly, more longitudinal 86 research examining the effects of mother-infant attachment on adolescent adjustment is warranted.
Future Research Suggestions
Although the present study addressed a number of the gaps in the attachment literature, there are numerous important questions yet to be explored that went beyond the scope of the present study. For instance, it has been suggested that having just one charismatic adult in a child’s life can greatly enhance that child’s resiliency (Masten &
Reed, 2002). Given this finding and that a teacher plays a significant role in a child’s day, it may be interesting to examine the effects of teacher attachment relationships on adolescent adjustment. In addition, only one other study was found examining attachment relationships among a lower class population and it utilized an infant sample (Fish,
2001). This is a great limitation because lower class individuals are often overlooked, which perpetuates the bias towards generalizing findings from middle class, white, males to all populations that is so pervasive in all fields of research. Additional research is also needed to determine how the quality of father attachment influences male and female children differently and if the effects change throughout development. Moreover, further investigation is needed to determine at what developmental point peer attachment begins to mediate the relationship between maternal attachment and social competence.
Overall, it appears that mothers, fathers, and peers influence adolescent adjustment in unique ways. It is important to note, however, that studies examining adolescent attachment to both parents and peers and its relation to adjustment utilize concurrent data. Given the use of concurrent data, the direction of causality is unclear. 87
Longitudinal data is needed to examine whether peer attachment leads to social adjustment or social adjustment leads to strong peer attachments. It may be that these two constructs (i.e., social adjustment and peer attachment) cannot be teased apart when they are both based on self-report.
Conclusion
Historically, the attachment literature has almost solely focused on the mother- infant relationship. This study added to the literature in a number of ways. First, a high- risk adolescent population was utilized which has been almost completely ignored in the literature. Additionally, the present study confirmed maternal attachment’s key role in multiple domains of adolescent adjustment. Moreover,the unique contributions of father attachment and peer attachment were highlighted. In addition, peer attachment was found to serve as a mediator of the relationship between maternal attachment and perceived social competence. The present study extended the present literature by examining the individual facets of attachment in relation to multiple measures of adjustment and investigating the way in which gender-specific attachment relationships differentially relate to adjustment Finally, the present study contributes to the attachment literature by identifying specific facets of parental and peer attachment relationships that may be targeted in clinical settings or in school-based intervention programs. 88
References
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Kuperminc, G. P., & Jodl, K. M. (2004). Stability and
change in attachment security across adolescence. Child Development, 75, 1792-
1805.
Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. W., O’Beirne–
Kelly, H., Kilmer, S. L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: Markers of
attachment security in the mother–adolescent relationship. Child Development,
74, 292-307.
Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The
two faces of adolescents’ success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social
adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76, 747-760.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (n.d.). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
Manual. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from Mark T. Greenberg via email.
Bachman, J. G. (1970). Youth in transition: The impact of family background and
intelligence of tenth-grade boys. Vol. 2. Ann Arbor, MI: Blumfield.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. 89
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. (2nd ed.). New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, L. J., Black, D. D., & Downs, J. C. (1984). School Social Skills (S3) manual. New
York: Slosson Education Publications.
Buhrmester, D. (n.d.). Adolescent Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire manual.
Retrieved August 9, 2005 via email from Duane Buhrmester.
Burgess, K. B., Marshall, P. J., Rubin, K. H., and Fox, N. A. (2003). Infant attachment
and temperament as predictors of subsequent externalizing problems and cardiac
physiology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 819-831.
Byng-Hall, J. (2002). Relieving parentified children’s burdens in families with insecure
attachment patterns. Family Process, 41, 375-388.
Byng-Hall, J., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1991). Attachment relationships within a family
system. Infant Mental Health Journal, 12, 187-200.
Cohn, D. A. (1990). Child-mother attachment of six-year-olds and social competence at
school. Child Development, 61, 152-162.
Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and
peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351-
368.
Cotterell, J. L. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-being
and school adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 28-42. 90
Doyle, A. B., and Markiewicz, D. (2005). Parenting, marital conflict and adjustment from
early- to mid-adolescence: Mediated by adolescent attachment style? Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 34, 97-110.
Erikson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., and Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality
of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I.
Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 147-
166.
Fish, M. (2001) Attachment in low-SES rural Appalachian infants: Contextual, infant,
and maternal interaction risk and protective factors. Infant Mental Health Journal,
22, 641-664.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and
dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6, 123-151.
Furman, W. & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of
networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental investigation of social
aggression among children. Developmental Psychopathology, 33, 589-600.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of
attachment relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 12, 373-386. 91
Gullone, E., & Robinson, K. (2005). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-
Revised (IPPA-R) for Children: A psychometric investigation. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 67-79.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminology, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric
psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Counseling Psychology, 65,
599-610.
Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting Adolescents.
(Chapter 4). In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting. Vol. 1: Children
and Parenting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Milich, R., Pillow, D., & McBride, K. (1993). The self-
perceptions and attributions of attention deficit hyperactivity disordered and
nonreferred boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 271-286.
Kerns, K. A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’
perceptions of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 457-466.
Kinasewitz, T. M. (1996). Reducing aggression in a high school setting through a conflict
resolution and peer mediation program. Florida: Nova Southeastern University.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED400495)
Kokko, K., & Pulkkinen, L. (2000). Aggression in childhood and long-term
unemployment in adulthood: A cycle of maladaption and some predictive factors.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 463-472. 92
Kozlowska, K., & Hanney, L. (2002). The network perspective: An integration of
attachment and family systems theories. Family Process, 41, 285-312.
Lagerspetz, K. M., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggression typical of
females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- to 12-year old children.
Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414.
Laible, D. J., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and
peer attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29,
45-59.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.) (2004). The role of the father in child development. (4th ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. (Chapter 7). In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security
of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence:
Associations with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202-213.
Lovas, G. S. (2005). Gender and patterns of emotional availability in mother-toddler and
father-toddler dyads. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26, 327-353.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-
child interaction. (Chapter 1). In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology. (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. 93
Main, M., Kaplan, L., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters
(Eds.), Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104.
Marcus, R. F., and Kramer, C. (2001). Reactive and proactive aggression: Attachment
and social competence predictors. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 260-
275.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nada Raja, S., McGee, R., and Stanton, W. R. (1992). Perceived attachments to parents
and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 21, 471-485.
Noom, M. J., Dekovic, M., and Meeus, W. H. J. (1999). Autonomy, attachment and
psychosocial adjustment during adolescence: a double-edged sword? Journal of
Adolescence, 22, 771-783.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival maual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS
for Windows (Version 12). (2nd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Parke, R. D. (1995). Fathers and families. (Chapter 2). In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Status of social conditions of parenting. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 94
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.
Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., and Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Early
childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary
school. Journal of Personality, 57, 257-280.
Reynolds, W. M. (2001). Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory (RAASI):
Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Rose-Krasnor, L., Rubin, K. H., Booth, C. L., and Coplan, R. (1996). The relation of
maternal directiveness and child attachment security to social competence in
preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 309-325.
Rubin, K. H., Dwyer, K. M., Booth-LaForce, C., Kim, A. H., Burgess, K. B., and Rose-
Krasnor, L. (2004). Attachment, friendship, and psychosocial functioning in early
adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 24, 326-356.
Rubin, K. H., & Rose-Krasnor, L. (1992). Interpersonal problem solving and social
competence in children. In V. VanHasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of
Social Development (pp.283-323). New York: Plenum.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardiff, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and
children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37,
86-100.
Simons, K. J., Paternite, C. E., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent
attachment and aggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence,
21, 182-203. 95
Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parent-child relations. Journal of Family
Issues, 15, 148-165.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Shmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003). Attachment representations in
school-age children: The development of the child attachment interview (CAI).
Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 29, 171-186.
Thompson, S. M. (1996). Peer mediation: A peaceful solution. School Counselor, 44,
151-154.
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment
relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26, 166-172.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Census demographic profile. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from
http://www.census.gov
Vernberg, E.M., Jacobs, A.K., & Hershberger, S.L. (1999). Peer victimization and
attitudes about violence during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 28, 386-395.
Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (2002). Perceptions of self and relationship with parents
in aggressive and nonaggressive rejected children. Journal of School Psychology,
40, 501-522. 96
Wartner, U. G., Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., & Suess, G. (1994). Attachment
patterns at age six in South Germany: Predictability from infancy and
implications for preschool behavior. Child Development, 65, 1014-1027.
Wilkinson, R. B. (2004). The role of parental and peer attachment in the psychological
health and self-esteem of adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 479-
493.
Wilkinson, R.B., & Walford, W.A. (2001). Attachment and personality in the
psychological health of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31,
473-484. 97
Appendix A
INVENTORY OF PARENT AND PEER ATTACHMENT (IPPA)
Authors: ©Gay C. Armsden, Ph.D. and Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D. 1
This questionnaire asks about your relationships with important people in your life; your mother, your father, and your close friends. Please read the directions to each part carefully.
Part I
Some of the following statements ask about your feelings about your mother or the person who has acted as your mother. If you have more than one person acting as your mother (e.g. a natural mother and a step-mother) answer the questions for the one you feel has most influenced you.
Please read each statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true the statement is for you now.
Almost Not Some- Often Almost Never or Very times True Always or Never Often True Always True True True
1. My mother respects my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I feel my mother does a good 1 2 3 4 5 job as my mother.
3. I wish I had a different mother. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My mother accepts me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I like to get my mother’s point of 1 2 3 4 5 view on things I’m concerned about.
6. I feel it’s no use letting my feelings 1 2 3 4 5 show around my mother.
7. My mother can tell when I’m 1 2 3 4 5 upset about something.
8. Talking over my problems with my mother 1 2 3 4 5 makes me feel ashamed or foolish.
9. My mother expects too much from me. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I get upset easily around my mother. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I get upset a lot more than my 1 2 3 4 5 mother knows about.
12. When we discuss things, my mother 1 2 3 4 5 cares about my point of view.
13. My mother trusts my judgment. 1 2 3 4 5
98
14. My mother has her own problems, 1 2 3 4 5 so I don’t bother her with mine.
15. My mother helps me to 1 2 3 4 5 understand myself better.
16. I tell my mother about my 1 2 3 4 5 problems and troubles.
17. I feel angry with my mother. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I don’t get much attention from my mother. 1 2 3 4 5
19. My mother helps me to talk 1 2 3 4 5 about my problems.
20. My mother understands me. 1 2 3 4 5
21. When I am angry about something, 1 2 3 4 5 my mother tries to be understanding.
22. I trust my mother. 1 2 3 4 5
23. My mother doesn’t understand 1 2 3 4 5 what I’m going through these days.
24. I can count on my mother when I need 1 2 3 4 5 to get something off my chest.
25. If my mother knows something is 1 2 3 4 5 bothering me, she asks me about it.
99
Part II
This part asks about your feelings about your father, or the man who has acted as your father. If you have more than one person acting as your father (e.g. natural and step-father) answer the question for the one you feel has most influenced you.
Almost Not Some- Often Almost Never or Very times True Always or Never Often True Always True True True
1. My father respects my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I feel my father does a good 1 2 3 4 5 job as my father.
3. I wish I had a different father. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My father accepts me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I like to get my father’s point of view 1 2 3 4 5 on things I’m concerned about.
6. I feel it’s no use letting my 1 2 3 4 5 feelings show around my father.
7. My father can tell when I’m 1 2 3 4 5 upset about something.
8. Talking over my problems with my father makes me feel ashamed or foolish. 1 2 3 4 5
9. My father expects too much from me. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I get upset easily around my father. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I get upset a lot more than my father 1 2 3 4 5 knows about.
12. When we discuss things, my father 1 2 3 4 5 cares about my point of view.
13. My father trusts my judgment. 1 2 3 4 5
14. My father has his own problems, 1 2 3 4 5 so I don’t bother him with mine.
15. My father helps me to understand 1 2 3 4 5 myself better.
16. I tell my father about my problems and 1 2 3 4 5 troubles
17. I feel angry with my father 1 2 3 4 5
18. I don’t get much attention from 1 2 3 4 5 my father.
19. My father helps me to talk about 1 2 3 4 5 my problems.
20. My father understands me. 1 2 3 4 5
21. When I am angry about something, my 1 2 3 4 5 father tries to be understanding. 100
22. I trust my father. 1 2 3 4 5
23. My father doesn’t understand what 1 2 3 4 5 I’m going through these days.
24. I can count on my father when I need 1 2 3 4 5 to get something off my chest.
25. If my father knows something is bothering 1 2 3 4 5 me, he asks me about it.
101
Part III
This part asks about your feelings about your relationship with your closest friend. Please read each statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true the statement is for you now.
Almost Not Some- Often Almost Never or Very times True Always or Never Often True Always True True True
1. I like to get my friend’s point of view on things I’m concerned about. 1 2 3 4 5
2. My friend can tell when I’m 1 2 3 4 5 upset about something.
3. When we discuss things, my friend 1 2 3 4 5 cares about my point of view.
4. Talking over my problems with my friend 1 2 3 4 5 makes me feel ashamed or foolish.
5. I wish I had a different friend. 1 2 3 4 5
6. My friend understands me. 1 2 3 4 5
7. My friend encourages me to talk about 1 2 3 4 5 my problems.
8. My friend accepts me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I feel the need to be in touch with 1 2 3 4 5 my friend more often.
10. My friend doesn’t understand what 1 2 3 4 5 I’m going through these days.
11. I feel alone or apart when I am 1 2 3 4 5 with my friend.
12. My friend listens to what I have to say. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I feel my friend is a good friend. 1 2 3 4 5
14. My friend is fairly easy to talk to. 1 2 3 4 5
15. When I am angry about something, 1 2 3 4 5 my friend tries to be understanding.
16. My friend helps me to understand 1 2 3 4 5 myself better.
17. My friend cares about how I am feeling. 1 2 3 4 5
18. I feel angry with my friend. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I can count on my friend when I need 1 2 3 4 5 to get something off my chest.
20. I trust my friend. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My friend respects my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I get upset a lot more than my 1 2 3 4 5 friend knows about. 102
23. It seems as if my friend is 1 2 3 4 5 irritated with me for no reason.
24. I can tell my friend about my 1 2 3 4 5 problems and troubles.
25. If my friend knows something 1 2 3 4 5 is bothering me, he or she asks me about it.
103
Appendix B
ICQ – R
Instruction: Circle the number which best describes you. See bottom of page for what each number means.
1 = Poor at this; would be so uncomfortable and unable to handle this situation that it would be avoided at possible. 2 = Fair at this; would feel uncomfortable and would have some difficulty handling this situation. 3 = O.K. at this; would feel somewhat uncomfortable and have a little difficulty handling this situation. 4 = Good at this; would feel very comfortable and could handle this situation very well. 5 = EXREMELY good at this; would feel very comfortable and could handle this situation very well.
1. How good are you at asking someone new to do things 1 2 3 4 5 together, like go to a ball game or a movie?
2. How good are you at making someone feel better when 1 2 3 4 5 they are unhappy or sad?
3. How good are you at getting people to go along with 1 2 3 4 5 what you want?
4. How good are you at telling people private things about 1 2 3 4 5 yourself?
5. How good are you at resolving disagreements in ways 1 2 3 4 5 that make things better instead of worse?
6. How good are you at going out of your way to start up 1 2 3 4 5 new relationships?
7. How good are you at being able to make others feel like 1 2 3 4 5 their problems are understood?
8. How good are you at taking charge? 1 2 3 4 5
9. How good are you at letting someone see your sensitive 1 2 3 4 5 side?
10. How good are you at dealing with disagreements in ways 1 2 3 4 5 that make both people happy in the long run?
104 11. How good are you at carrying on conversations with new 1 2 3 4 5 people that you would like to know better?
12. How good are you at helping people work through their 1 2 3 4 5 thoughts and feelings about important decisions?
13. How good are you at sticking up for yourself? 1 2 3 4 5
14. How good are you at telling someone embarrassing 1 2 3 4 5 things about yourself?
15. How good are you at resolving disagreements in ways 1 2 3 4 5 so neither person feels hurt or resentful?
16. How good are you at introducing yourself to people for 1 2 3 4 5 the first time?
17. How good are you at helping people handle pressure or 1 2 3 4 5 upsetting events?
18. How good are you at getting someone to agree with your 1 2 3 4 5 point of view?
19. How good are you at opening up and letting someone get 1 2 3 4 5 to know everything about you?
20. How good are you at dealing with disagreements in ways 1 2 3 4 5 so that one person does not always come out the loser?
21. How good are you at calling new people on the phone to 1 2 3 4 5 set up a time to get together to do things?
22. How good are you at showing that you really care when 1 2 3 4 5 someone talks about problems?
23. How good are you at deciding what should be done? 1 2 3 4 5
24. How good are you at sharing personal thoughts and 1 2 3 4 5 feelings with others?
25. How good are you at dealing with disagreements in ways 1 2 3 4 5 that don’t lead to big arguments?
26. How good are you at going places where there are unfamiliar 1 2 3 4 5 people in order to get to know new people?
27. How good are you at helping others understand 1 2 3 4 5 Your problems better?
28. How good are you at voicing your desires and opinions? 1 2 3 4 5
29. How good are you at telling someone things that you 1 2 3 4 5 do not want everyone to know?
30. How good are you at getting over disagreements quickly? 1 2 3 4 5
31. How good are you at making good first impressions when 1 2 3 4 5 getting to know new people?
32. How good are you at giving suggestions and advice in ways 1 2 3 4 5 that are received well by others?
33. How good are you at getting your own way with others? 1 2 3 4 5
34. How good are you at telling someone your true feelings 1 2 3 4 5 about other people?
105 35. How good are you at controlling your temper when having 1 2 3 4 5 a conflict with someone?
36. How good are you at being an interesting and fun person to be 1 2 3 4 5 with when first getting to know people?
37. How good are you at listening while others “let off steam” about 1 2 3 4 5 problems they are going through?
38. How good are you at making decisions about where to go 1 2 3 4 5 or what to do?
39. How good are you at telling someone what you personally 1 2 3 4 5 think about important issues?
40. How good are you at backing down in a disagreement once it 1 2 3 4 5 becomes clear that he is wrong? 106
Appendix C
Reynolds Adolescent Adjustment Screening Inventory
In the past 6 months…
Never or Nearly almost Some- all the never times time
1. I felt that everything was OK in my life. 1 2 3
2. I argued with my teachers or parents. 1 2 3
3. I used drugs or alcohol. 1 2 3
4. I enjoyed getting together with my friends or family. 1 2 3
5. I lost my temper. 1 2 3
6. I felt good about myself. 1 2 3
7. I argued with adults. 1 2 3
8. I did what adults asked me to do. 1 2 3
9. I did things to bother people. 1 2 3
10. If someone told me to do something I did the opposite. 1 2 3
11. I felt very angry. 1 2 3
12. I felt like getting back at others. 1 2 3
13. I broke the rules at school or at home. 1 2 3
14. At night, I stayed out later than I was allowed. 1 2 3
15. I got so mad that I threw things at home or at school. 1 2 3
16. I felt comfortable meeting new people. 1 2 3
17. I did things that were against the law. 1 2 3
18. I was very lonely. 1 2 3
19. I had fun with friends. 1 2 3
20. I felt very tense. 1 2 3
21. I got into trouble at school or at work. 1 2 3
22. I felt nervous. 1 2 3
23. I felt depressed or sad. 1 2 3
24. I stayed away from home without telling my parents where I was. 1 2 3
25. I did not study or turn in my homework. 1 2 3
26. I worried about a lot of things. 1 2 3
27. I worried a lot about the future. 1 2 3
28. I had trouble falling asleep. 1 2 3 107 29. I felt upset. 1 2 3
30. I had trouble concentrating. 1 2 3
31. I felt like crying for no reason. 1 2 3
32. I did something I knew was bad. 1 2 3 108
Appendix D
Peer Experiences Questionnaire
PART 1. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU A Instructions: These questions ask how often a student bullied Once About About few or picked on you. These can be things that happened at school Never or once a once a times or somewhere else, as long as they involved other students. twice month week a You should circle the number to show how often each action week happened to you in the past four months.
1. A student teased me in a mean way, called me bad names, 1 2 3 4 5 or said rude things to me. 2. A student said he or she was going to hurt me or beat me up. 1 2 3 4 5 3. A student scared me so that I gave up money or other things. 1 2 3 4 5 4. A student told put-downs or rumors about me. 1 2 3 4 5 5. A student hit, kicked, or pushed me in a mean way. 1 2 3 4 5 6. A student grabbed, held, or touched me in a way I didn’t like. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Some students left me out of an activity or conversation that I 1 2 3 4 5 really wanted to be included in. 8. A student chased me like he or she was really trying to hurt me. 1 2 3 4 5 9. A student played a mean trick to scare or hurt me. 1 2 3 4 5
PART 2. WHAT YOU DID A Instructions: The next questions ask how often you bullied Once About About few or picked on another student. You should circle the number Never or once a once a times to show how often you did each action in the past four twice month week a months. week 10. I teased a student in a mean way, called him or her bad names, 1 2 3 4 5 or said rude things to him or her. 11. I threatened to hurt or beat up another student. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I scared another student into giving up money or other things. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I told put-downs or rumors about another student 1 2 3 4 5 14. I hit, kicked, or pushed another student in a mean way. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I grabbed, held, or touched another student in a way he or she 1 2 3 4 5 didn’t like. 16. I helped leave a student out of an activity or conversation that he 1 2 3 4 5 or she really wanted to be included in 17. I chased a student like I was really trying to hurt him or her. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I played a mean trick to scare or hurt another student. 1 2 3 4 5
109
PART 3. WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN A Instructions: The next questions ask how often you have seen a Once About About few student being bullied or picked on by another student. You should Never or once a once a times circle the number to show how often you have seen each action twice month week a in the past four months. week 19. I saw a student tease another student in a mean way, call him or her bad 1 2 3 4 5 names, or say rude things to him or her. 20. I saw a student threaten to hurt or beat up another student. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I saw a student scare another student into giving up money or other things. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I saw a student tell put-downs or rumors about another student 1 2 3 4 5 23. I saw a student hit, kick, or push another student in a mean way. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I saw a student grab, hold, or touch another student in a way he or she 1 2 3 4 5 didn’t like. 25. I saw a student help leave another student out of an activity or 1 2 3 4 5 conversation that he or she really wanted to be included in 26. I saw a student chase another student like he or she was really trying to 1 2 3 4 5 hurt him or her. 27. I saw a student play a mean trick to scare or hurt another student. 1 2 3 4 5
110
Appendix E
School Social Skills (S3)
Developed by:
Laura J. Brown Donald D. Black John C. Downs
STUDENT INFORMATION:
Name______I.D. #______Birthdate______
School______Age______Sex______Date of Rating______
RATER INFORMATION:
Name______I.D. #______Position______
RATER DIRECTIONS
1. The School Social Skills (S3) Rating Scale is to be used in conjunction with the School Social Skills (S3) Manual. Items should be rated only after reading the S3 Manual.
2. Base your ratings on the student’s behavior within the past month.
3. As much as possible, base your ratings on behavior you have actually observed, as it has occurred throughout the school day in settings such as the classroom, hallway, lunchroom, playground, etc.
4. Rate each item. Your rating should be based on the frequency at which the student displays the skill under appropriate conditions. Follow the quality standards and circumstance guidelines in the S3 Manual when making your ratings. Use the following rating scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 No opportunity Never uses Rarely uses Occasionally uses Often uses the Always to observe the the skill the skill the skill and/or skill under uses the behavior uses it at incorrect appropriate skill times conditions under appropriate conditions
For example, a student would receive a “6” rating for “Volunteers” (#12) only if s/he used the components of the skill and only volunteered when it appeared that the adult needed some assistance. A student would receive a lower rating if: a) s/he failed to volunteer when circumstances warranted; b) s/he failed to use the components correctly if s/he attempted to volunteer; or c) s/he volunteered using the components correctly but did so more than the circumstances warranted, i.e. – in excess.
111 5. Rate each item independently of other items in the same category, and use the full range offered by the scale. For example, all items in the “Peer Relations” category should not be rated with a “6” simply because the student never has difficulty getting along with peers. In each category there may be items you have had no opportunity to observe, and others where components within the skill were not properly used.
ADULT RELATIONS Rate each of the following behaviors using the 1-6 scale according to your observations of how frequently the student displays the behavior under appropriate conditions in the classroom and in other areas of the school (hallway, lunchroom, playground, etc.), with you or other school personnel in positions of authority (administrators, counselors, aides, etc.).
No Never Rarely Occasionally Often uses Always opportunity uses uses uses skill or skill under uses skill to observe skill skill uses it at appropriate under behavior incorrect conditions appropriate times conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Follows instructions when given verbally by adults. □ □ □ □ □ □ 2. Accepts criticism from adults concerning his/her □ □ □ □ □ □ inappropriate behavior. 3. Accepts “NO” for an answer when requests are denied □ □ □ □ □ □ or when not getting his/her way. 4. Greets when encountering familiar adults. □ □ □ □ □ □ 5. Introduces self when encountering unfamiliar adults. □ □ □ □ □ □ 6. Makes requests before using adults’ belongings or □ □ □ □ □ □ when approaching adults to ask for help, explanations, instructions, etc. 7. Gives compliments about qualities or □ □ □ □ □ □ accomplishments of adults. 8. Accepts compliments from adults praising or □ □ □ □ □ □ recognizing him/her. 9. Makes conversation when in the company of adults in □ □ □ □ □ □ informal situations. 10. Disagrees appropriately when not understanding or □ □ □ □ □ □ disagreeing with adults’ criticism or denials. 11. Apologizes voluntarily to adults after engaging in □ □ □ □ □ □ inappropriate or accidental behavior. 12. Volunteers to assist adults when it appears they may □ □ □ □ □ □ need assistance. 112
PEER RELATIONS Rate each of the following behaviors using the 1-6 scale according to your observations of how frequently the student displays the behavior under appropriate conditions with peers in the classroom and in other areas of the school (hallway, lunchroom, playground, etc.)
13. Complies with reasonable requests to help or share □ □ □ □ □ □ with peers. 14. Accepts criticism from peers regarding his/her □ □ □ □ □ □ possible inappropriate behavior. 15. Accepts “NO” for an answer when requests are □ □ □ □ □ □ denied or when not getting his/her way with peers. 16. Greets when encountering familiar peers. □ □ □ □ □ □ 17. Introduces self when encountering unfamiliar peers. □ □ □ □ □ □ 18. Makes requests before using peers’ belongings or □ □ □ □ □ □ when approaching peers to ask for help, explanations, instructions, etc. 19. Gives compliments about qualities or □ □ □ □ □ □ accomplishments of peers. 20. Accepts compliments from peers praising or □ □ □ □ □ □ recognizing him/her 21. Makes conversation when in the company of peers in □ □ □ □ □ □ informal situations 22. Participates in activities with peers in informal □ □ □ □ □ □ situations. 23. Disagrees appropriately when not understanding or □ □ □ □ □ □ disagreeing with peers’ criticism or denials. 24. Gives negative feedback to peers regarding their □ □ □ □ □ □ possible inappropriate behavior. 25. Resists peer pressure when urged to participate with □ □ □ □ □ □ peers engaging in inappropriate behavior. 26. Reports peer behavior to adults when peers are about □ □ □ □ □ □ to or have engaged in serious inappropriate behavior and ignores minor inappropriate behavior. 27. Apologizes voluntarily to peers after engaging in □ □ □ □ □ □ inappropriate or accidental behavior. 28. Volunteers to assist peers when it appears they may □ □ □ □ □ □ need assistance. 113
SCHOOL RULES Rate each of the following behaviors using the 1-6 scale according to your observations of how frequently the student adheres to these school rules when in the school building or on the school grounds.
29. Is responsible with school supplies and property. □ □ □ □ □ □ 30. Maintains good school attendance. □ □ □ □ □ □ 31. Adheres to school dress code and maintains neat □ □ □ □ □ □ personal appearance. 32. Walks quietly in school building. □ □ □ □ □ □ 33. Refrains from possessing or glamorizing contraband. □ □ □ □ □ □ 34. Is honest. □ □ □ □ □ □
CLASSROOM BEHAVIORS Rate each of the following behaviors using the 1-6 scale according to your observations of how frequently the student displays the behavior under appropriate conditions in the classroom setting.
35. Attends to listening activities such as lectures, audio- □ □ □ □ □ □ visual presentations, outside speakers, etc. 36. Participates in discussions with others on assigned □ □ □ □ □ □ topics. 37. Contributes to group projects when working with □ □ □ □ □ □ others on such projects as role playing, reading aloud, or hands-on activities. 38. Remains on task when given individual assignments □ □ □ □ □ □ during class. 39. Completes homework assignments on time. □ □ □ □ □ □ 40. Asks permission before talking out in class or leaving □ □ □ □ □ □ assigned work areas.